Action brought on 25 October 2006 - Leclercq v Commission

(Case T-299/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sylvie Leclercq (represented by: S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Declare the action admissible;

Annul the Commission's decision of 27 July 2006, in that it refuses the applicant access to the Commission's documents sought;

Order the defendant to pay the costs;

Order the defendant, in respect of its non-contractual liability, to pay the applicant EUR 50 per day from the date of the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of 27 July 2006, adopted by the Secretary-General of the Commission, rejecting her confirmatory application for access to an extract from the databases containing information relating to the Commission's staff. The reasons for refusal put forward by the Commission were that the application was outside the scope of Regulation No 1049/2001 ¹ on the ground that, in this case, it was not an application for access to an existing document held by the institution, within the meaning of that regulation.

In support of her action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law. The first alleges infringement of Article 3(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 on the ground that, in the contested decision, the Commission excludes a database from the meaning of 'document'. The applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by making such exclusion which is not provided for by the regulation and goes against the broad interpretation which should be given, in the applicant's submission, to the meaning of 'document' in Regulation No 1049/2001.

The second plea in law alleges infringement of Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 and of the duty to state reasons on the ground that the Commission did not state in the contested decision how the disclosure of the document sought would undermine a public or private interest so that it could be refused on the basis of one of the exceptions in Article 4 of the regulation.

The applicant claims that the Commission's conduct, which she alleges to be unlawful because contrary to Regulation No 1049/2001, is capable of giving rise to its non-contractual liability under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC. She therefore claims compensation for the losses, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary, which the Commission's conduct has caused her.

____________

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).