Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 18 August 2008 - Batchelor v Commission

(Case T-342/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edward William Batchelor (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Young, Solicitor, A. Barav, Barrister and D. Reymond, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul the implied negative decision deemed, pursuant to Article 8(3) of the Access Regulation, to have been made by the European Commission on 11 June 2008, the express negative decision SG/E/3/HP/cr D(2008)5545, made by the Commission on 3 July 2008, and the express negative decision SG/E/3/EV/psi D(2008)6636, made by the Commission on 7 August 2008, relating to a request for access to documents presented pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43);

Order the Commission to pay its own costs and the applicant's costs in relation to these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application for annulment, pursuant to Article 230(4), is brought against the Commission's implied negative decision of 11 June 2008 and express negative decisions, SG/E/3/HP/cr D(2008)5545 of 3 July 2008 and SG/E/3/EV/psi D(2008)6636 of 7 August 2008, made pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001¹ ('the Access Regulation') by which the Commission rejected the applicant's request for access to documents the Commission sent to, and received from, the Belgian authorities, relating to the notification of measures taken under Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities², as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997³.

The applicant claims that the Commission's failure to provide adequate and sufficient reasons for denying access to the documents requested, amounts to a violation of Article 253 EC and Article 8(1) of the Access Regulation and that, consequently, the contested decision is vitiated by an infringement of an essential procedural requirement, as envisaged in Article 230(2) EC.

The applicant further submits that, in wrongly relying on the permissible exceptions for denying access to the documents requested, the Commission has violated Article 255 EC and Articles 1(a), 2(1) and (3), 4(1) to (6) of the Access Regulation and that, consequently, the contested decision is vitiated by an infringement of the Treaty and of any rule of law relating to its application, as envisaged in Article 230(2) EC.

____________

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

² - OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23

³ - OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60