This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022TN0205
Case T-205/22: Action brought on 15 April 2022 — Naass and Sea Watch v Frontex
Case T-205/22: Action brought on 15 April 2022 — Naass and Sea Watch v Frontex
Case T-205/22: Action brought on 15 April 2022 — Naass and Sea Watch v Frontex
OJ C 244, 27.6.2022, p. 39–39
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 244, 27.6.2022, p. 38–38
(GA)
27.6.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 244/39 |
Action brought on 15 April 2022 — Naass and Sea Watch v Frontex
(Case T-205/22)
(2022/C 244/52)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Marie Naass (Berlin, Germany), Sea Watch eV (Berlin) (represented by: I. Van Damme and Q. Declève, lawyers)
Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— |
annul Frontex Decision DGSC/TO/PAD-2021-00350 of 7 February 2022; |
— |
order Frontex to bear the costs of the applicants. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that, in its Decision DGSC/TO/PAD-2021-00350 of 7 February 2022, Frontex did not appropriately state the reasons for its refusal to disclose certain documents pertaining to a specific event that took place in the Mediterranean sea on 30 July 2021, on the basis of the public security exception under Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1) |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that Decision DGSC/TO/PAD-2021-00350 of 7 February 2022 violates Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001 by refusing partial access to the requested documents. |
(1) 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).