72The Commission notes that the applicant does not present any legal arguments in support of its contention that the exception of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001, and subsequently Regulation No 45/2001, does not apply, but has merely relied on the Ombudsman's draft recommendation and the resolution of the European Parliament supporting it. However the Ombudsman's conclusion was based on an interpretation of Directive 95/46, and of the Code of Conduct, which was subsequently disproved by the Court (Case C-41/00 PInterporc v Commission [2003] ECR I-2125; Case T-92/98Interporc v Commission [1999] ECR II-3521, paragraph 70; and Case T-47/01Co-Frutta v Commission [2003] ECR II-4441, paragraphs 63 and 64). Since the applicants latest request for access was made after Regulations Nos 45/2001 and 1049/2001 came into force, the Commissions decision to withhold the names should be examined under those rules. In any event, the conclusive interpretation of the law is not within the remit of either the Ombudsman or the Parliament.