T-312/17 - Campbell v Commission - Main contents
| Zaak | T-312/17 |
|---|---|
| Aanvrager | Liam Campbell (Dundalk, Ireland) (represented by: J. MacGuill, Solicitor) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the Commission’s decision of 7 April 2017 refusing the applicant access to documents concerning infringement proceedings initiated against Lithuania for alleged non-implementation of Directive 2010/64/EU. 1 Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging the failure by the defendant to conduct a concrete assessment of the request for access to documents under Regulation 1049/2001, in breach of relevant case-law. Second plea in law, alleging the defendant’s unlawful reliance on certain general presumptions relating to the disclosure of documents, in breach of the principles identified in the relevant case-law. Third plea in law, alleging the defendant’s failure to process a specific and effective examination of the risk for each document, likewise in breach of relevant case-law. Fourth plea in law, alleging the defendant’s failure to carry out a specific and effective examination of potential partial access in breach of the case-law. Fifth plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment by the defendant regarding the existence of an overriding public interest, in breach of the principles in the case-law. ____________1 Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (OJ 2010, L 280, p. 1). |
| Verweerder | European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the Commission’s decision of 7 April 2017 refusing the applicant access to documents concerning infringement proceedings initiated against Lithuania for alleged non-implementation of Directive 2010/64/EU. 1 Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging the failure by the defendant to conduct a concrete assessment of the request for access to documents under Regulation 1049/2001, in breach of relevant case-law. Second plea in law, alleging the defendant’s unlawful reliance on certain general presumptions relating to the disclosure of documents, in breach of the principles identified in the relevant case-law. Third plea in law, alleging the defendant’s failure to process a specific and effective examination of the risk for each document, likewise in breach of relevant case-law. Fourth plea in law, alleging the defendant’s failure to carry out a specific and effective examination of potential partial access in breach of the case-law. Fifth plea in law alleging a manifest error of assessment by the defendant regarding the existence of an overriding public interest, in breach of the principles in the case-law. ____________1 Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (OJ 2010, L 280, p. 1). |
| Datum indiening verzoekschrift | 01-06-2017 |
This case-file is compiled each night drawing from aforementioned source(s) through automated processes. We have invested a great deal in optimising the programming underlying these processes. However, we cannot guarantee the source(s) we draw our information from nor the resulting case-file is without fault.