Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62023CN0051

Case C-51/23 P: Appeal brought on 1 February 2023 by Validity Foundation — Mental Disability Advocacy Centre against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 22 November 2022 in Case T-640/20, Validity v Commission

OJ C 189, 30.5.2023, p. 8–9 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

30.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/8

Appeal brought on 1 February 2023 by Validity Foundation — Mental Disability Advocacy Centre against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 22 November 2022 in Case T-640/20, Validity v Commission

(Case C-51/23 P)

(2023/C 189/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Validity Foundation — Mental Disability Advocacy Centre (represented by: B. Van Vooren, advocaat, and M.R. Oyarzabal Arigita, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

—

set aside the Order of the General Court delivered on 22 November 2022 in Case T-640/20, Validity v Commission;

—

grant the annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 5540 final of 6 August 2020 and of Decision C(2021) 2834 final of 19 April 2021; and

—

order the European Commission to pay the Applicant’s costs; or

—

in the alternative, remit the case to the General Court for a decision on its merits and reserve the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

In their first plea in law, the Applicant contests the General Court’s findings that there is no risk that the Commission will in the future breach Article 4(3) of the Regulation 1049/2001 (the ‘Transparency Regulation’) because:

i.

the ‘climate of mutual trust’ ground does not constitute a general presumption of confidentiality; and

ii.

there is no risk that the Commission will again rely on a vague ground, such as ‘climate of mutual trust’, in future document access requests.

In their second plea in law, the Applicant submits that the General Court erred in law when it concludes that there is no risk that there will be a repetition of the breaches of the principles of transparency, good administration, and procedural breaches of the Transparency Regulation that occurred in the procedure that gave rise to this proceedings.

Top