This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62025TN0483R(01)
Corrigendum to the Case T-483/25 (OJ C, C/2025/5083, 29.9.2025)
Corrigendum to the Case T-483/25 (OJ C, C/2025/5083, 29.9.2025)
Corrigendum to the Case T-483/25 (OJ C, C/2025/5083, 29.9.2025)
OJ C, C/2025/90096, 3.11.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5083/corrigendum/2025-11-03/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5083/corrigendum/2025-11-03/oj
|
Official Journal |
EN C series |
|
C/2025/90096 |
3.11.2025 |
Corrigendum to the Case T-483/25
( Official Journal of the European Union C, C/2025/5083, 29 September 2025 )
The Case T-483/25, Wölken v Commission, should read as follows:
Action brought on 19 July 2025 – Wölken v Commission
(Case T-483/25)
(C/2025/5083)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Tiemo Wölken (Osnabrück, Germany) (represented by: C. Zatschler, Senior Counsel, and M. Sánchez Rydelski, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the implicit decisions of the defendant of 30 May 2025 and 4 July 2025, rejecting his requests for access to several documents relating to legislative procedures, in particular concerning a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on standard essential patents and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, (1) pursuant to Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2) as deemed rejected by the defendant; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by him in addition to its own costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on one pleas in law.
There has been a breach of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU.
The defendant did not respond within the applicable time-limit to two confirmatory applications by the applicant for access to documents, which, pursuant to Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, resulted in the applications being deemed to have been rejected. Such a presumed refusal of access meant, by definition, that there was a complete lack of justification and therefore did not fulfil the obligation of the EU institutions to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU.
(1) Proposal of 27 April 2023 (COM(2023) 232 final).
(2) 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).
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5083/corrigendum/2025-11-03/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)