Language of document :

Action brought on 2 June 2014 — Secolux v Commission

(Case T-363/14)

Language of the case: French


Applicant: Secolux, Association pour le contrôle de la sécurité de la construction (Capellen, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Prüm-Carré, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decisions of 1 and 14 April 2014 by the Secretary General of the European Commission refusing to grant access to all the documents relating to the contract award procedure No 02/2013/01L ‘Safety checks’ for lot 1 and, in particular, the tender of the successful tenderer, the price schedule, the evaluation report of that offer and also the service contract entered into with the contracting authority;

order European Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea, alleging failure to respond to the request to be provided with all the documents relating to the contract award procedure, since it responded only to the requests for access relating to the evaluation report, the tender of the successful tenderer, the price schedule, and the service contract entered into with the successful tenderer.

Second plea, alleging breach of the provisions of Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001. 1

The refusal to provide access to the documents on the ground that it would undermine the protection of privacy and integrity of the individual within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not constitute a legitimate reason, given that an anonymous version could have been provided.

The application of the exception relating to the protection of commercial interests within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is not justified, given that the evaluation report and the price schedule do not contain any information relating to technical resources or personnel and do reveal any know-how or technical expertise.

The decision-making process is not undermined within the meaning of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 since (i) the award decision had been taken and the service contract had been signed with the successful tenderer when the decision refusing access was taken and (ii) the documents requested did not constitute opinions within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, and since, in any event, the disclosure of the documents is not liable to undermine the Commission’s decision-making process.

There is an overriding public interest, namely, the principle of transparency in the area of the implementation of the budget.

It has not been shown that partial communication of the documents within the meaning of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 was not possible.

Third plea, alleging failure to provide a real reason for the decisions taken.



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).