Action brought on 22 February 2013 - Dennekamp v Parliament

(Case T-115/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gert-Jan Dennekamp (Giethoorn, Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer and T. Oeyen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the decision of the Parliament dated 11 December 2012 refusing to grant access to (i) all documents that show which current Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are members of the Additional Pension Scheme (the Pension Scheme), (ii) a list of the names of MEPs who were members of the Pension Scheme after September 2005, and (iii) a list of the names of the present members of the Pension Scheme for whom Parliament pays a monthly contribution. This decision was communicated to the applicant on 12 December 2012 in a letter bearing the reference A(2012)13180; and

Order the Parliament to pay the applicant's costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 11 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; error of law in the application of Article 4(1)(b) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001² in conjunction with Article 8(b) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, as the contested decision unduly restricts the scope of the right to receive and impart information contained in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter), and the right of access to official documents contained in the Charter's Article 42, by misapplying Article 4(1)(b) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, in conjunction with Article 8(b) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, in that:

Firstly, the Parliament was wrong in considering that the applicant did not submit express and legitimate reasons showing the necessity for the personal data, included in the requested documents, to be transferred;

Secondly, the Parliament wrongly considered that the information on membership in the Pension Scheme falls into the private sphere of the MEPs concerned; and

Thirdly, the Parliament erred in law when considering that the legitimate interest of the MEPs concerned prevail over the necessity of the data transfer.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Parliament, as a result of its errors of law, did not fulfil its obligation to state sufficient and adequate reasons for the contested decision, thereby breaching the obligation to state adequate reasons under Article 296 TFEU.

____________

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)

² - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1)