You are on page 1of 1

C 80/32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 27.3.

2010

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed the opening of negotiations between the European Union and
the United States of America for an international agreement to
make available to the United States Treasury Department
financial messaging data to prevent and combat terrorism and
terrorist financing’. The Council has provided the applicant with
Pleas in law: Error of law in the application of Article 7(1)(f) of a redacted version of document 11897/09, excluding those
Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of parts which, in the applicant’s opinion, would enable her to
the same Regulation, since the mark applied for is not contrary gain knowledge of the substance of the Legal Service’s analysis.
to accepted principles of morality

The applicant submits that the contested decision should be


(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the annulled because it violates the rules on access to documents
Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1). contained in Regulation No 1049/2001.

First, the applicant contends that the contested decision is


wrongly based on Article 4(1)(a), third indent of Regulation
Action brought on 31 December 2009 — In ‘t Veld v 1049/2001 (protection of international relations) as the
Council Council fails to show how full disclosure of document
11897/09 would undermine the protection of the public
(Case T-529/09) interest as regards the protection of the European Union’s inter­
national relations.
(2010/C 80/54)

Language of the case: English

Second, the applicant claims that the contested decision is also


based on an erroneous interpretation of Article 4(2), second
Parties indent of Regulation 1049/2001 (protection of legal advice)
Applicant: Sophie in ‘t Veld (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: as this exception does not apply to document 11897/09
O. Brouwer and J. Blockx, lawyers) since its full disclosure would not undermine the protection
of court proceedings or legal advice and since there is an over­
riding public interest in making document 11897/09 fully
accessible to the public.

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subsidiarily, should the Court consider that these aforemen­


tioned exceptions would be applicable to document
Form of order sought 11897/09, the applicant submits that the Council has
wrongly applied Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001 insofar
— annul the decision of the Council to refuse full access to as it redacted from document 11897/09 more information than
document 11897/09; what was strictly necessary.

— order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs, including the


costs of any intervening parties. Finally, the Applicant submits that the Council did not fulfil its
obligation to state reasons for the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments


By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment of (1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European
the Council decision of 8 September 2009 rejecting her request, Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145,
pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), of the full access to p. 43
document 11897/09 which is an opinion from the Legal
Service of the Council concerning the legal basis of the ‘Recom­
mendation from the Commission to the Council to authorise