Action brought on 16 September 2013 – McCullough v Cedefop

(Case T-496/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Colin Boyd McCullough (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: G. Matsos, Lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul Cedefop’s refusal dated 15 July 2013, to grant to the applicant access to certain documents;

Order Cedefop to provide to the applicant the requested documents;

Authorise according to Article 1(3) of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union that the Greek national authorities may violate the premises and buildings of Cedefop, with the purpose of locating and providing the documents at issue and of investigating possible crimes, which may have been committed by any person in relation thereto; and

Order Cedefop to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that Cedefop has infringed EU law in the contested decision through erroneous interpretation of Art. 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

Second plea in law, alleging that Cedefop has infringed EU law through erroneous interpretation of Art. 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

Third plea in law, alleging that the behaviour of the Acting Director of Cedefop is at least questionable, when he claims that it is questionable whether the KMS-Steering Group Meetings Minutes, among the requested documents, have ever existed, as he should be aware of their existence (or non-existence), because he was Deputy Director of Cedefop during a long period (one year) that such documents were being produced. Such behaviour makes the investigation of the premises of Cedefop by the competent national authorities necessary.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that Cedefop has failed to adopt practical arrangements for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and that the respective Detailed Rules, which the Commission has adopted should be applied by analogy.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that Cedefop’s refusal to provide access to the requested documents violates the applicant’s rights as a Defendant in criminal proceedings.