Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 28 May 2003 by Isabella Scippacercola against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-187/03)

    Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 May 2003 by Isabella Scippacercola, Brussels, Belgium, represented by Dr K. Adamantopoulos and Mr D. Papakrivopoulos, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

listnum "WP List 1" \l 1annul the Commission decision in the form of a letter dated 19 March 2003 and notified to the applicant by fax of 31 March 2003, refusing to the latter access to the cost-benefit study relating to the construction of the Spata Airport;

listnum "WP List 1" \l 1order that the costs of, and occasioned by, these proceedings be borne by the respondent.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant has requested from the Commission, amongst others, a copy of the cost-benefit analysis concerning the creation of the Spata Airport. According to the applicant, this document should have accompanied the application by Greece for assistance from the Cohesion Fund. The request for access to documents was refused by the Commission. With the refusal however, the Commission transmitted part of the application for assistance from the Cohesion Fund, which contained a short description of the main topics of the cost-benefit analysis. The confirmatory application by the applicant was also rejected.

In support of its application, the applicant submits in the first place that the Commission made a manifest error in law and a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts. According to the applicant, the Commission erred in its assumption that the document for which access was requested originated from a Member State. According to the applicant, Greece was not the original creator of the document, but merely forwarded the document as part of its application for assistance from the Cohesion Fund.

The applicant claims that, as a consequence, the Commission wrongly relied on and misinterpreted Article 4(5) of Regulation 1049/2001¹ regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents and Article 5(4) of Decision 2001/937² (sic). The applicant claims that the document should have been considered as a third party document and hence Article 4(4) of Regulation 1049/2001 should have been applied.

The applicant also claims in this respect that the Commission infringed Article 1(a) of Regulation 1049/2001 and the principle of the widest possible access to documents held by the Commission.

Secondly, the applicant invokes a violation of Article 4(5) of Regulation 1049/2001 and Article 5(4) of Decision 2001/937 (sic) to the extent that the Commission failed to assess the justification given by Greece and, in doing so, gave a de facto power of veto to the Member State concerned.

The applicant furthermore invokes a violation of the obligation to state reasons and, finally, a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001 to the extent that the Commission have allegedly failed to examine whether partial access should have been granted.

____________

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 L 145, p. 43).

² - 2001/937/EC, ECSC, Euratom: Commission Decision of 5 December 2001 amending its rules of procedure (notified under document number C(2001) 3714) (OJ L 345, p. 94)