Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 13 October 2009 - Terezakis v Commission

(Case T-411/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ioannis Terezakis (represented by: B. Lombart, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul the Commission decision in the form of a letter dated 3 August 2009 received by the applicant on 10 August 2009, refusing to disclose to the latter some parts and the annexes of certain letters exchanged between the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the Greek Ministry of Finances regarding possible tax irregularities in connexion with the construction of Spata airport in Athens, Greece,

order that the costs of, and occasioned by these proceedings, be borne by the respondent.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's decision of 3 August 2009 which was notified to the applicant on 10 August 2009 refusing to disclose to the latter some parts and the annexes of certain letters exchanged between the European Anti- Fraud Office (OLAF) and the Greek Ministry of Finances regarding possible tax irregularities in connexion with the construction of the Athens international airport at Spata, on the basis of the following grounds.

The applicant claims, first, that the contested decision suffers from a manifest error in law and an error in the appreciation of facts insofar as the Commission wrongly interpreted and applied Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001¹ of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. The applicant submits that the Commission merely invoked the exception to public access relating to the need to protect the commercial secrets in the abstract, in order to refuse the disclosure of certain parts of the documents concerned, without pleading specific grounds pertaining to the risk of effectively undermining the protection of commercial interests of the undertakings involved.

The applicant moreover submits that the Commission violated Article 1 of the abovementioned Regulation and the principle of widest possible access to documents held by the Commission set out in paragraph (a) of this Article as well as the case law of Community Courts.

Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission committed a manifest error of law by failing to inform the applicant of the grounds on which it based its decision. It is submitted that the Commission violated the obligation to state reasons enshrined in Article 253 EC by simply referring to the exceptions of Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, in order to refuse the requested access.

Finally, the applicant contends that the Commission wrongly concluded that the annexes to the letters to which the applicant requested access were in the applicant's possession, departing from an erroneous interpretation that the documents requested were identical to those held by the applicant. Hence, the applicant submits that the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error in law insofar as the Commission abstained to apply the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and in particular, its Article 4.

____________

¹ - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43)