Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62020TN0255

Case T-255/20: Action brought on 4 May 2020 — ClientEarth v Commission

OJ C 247, 27.7.2020, p. 18–19 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

27.7.2020   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/18

Action brought on 4 May 2020 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-255/20)

(2020/C 247/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Logue, Solicitor, and J. Kenny, Barrister-at-law)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the implied decision of the European Commission dated 26 February 2020 in case GESTDEM No 2019/6819 refusing the applicant’s request for access to documents in part;

—

rule on the costs and order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs as well as order any intervening parties to carry their own costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment and errors of law resulting in the misapplication of the protection of the decision-making process exception (second subparagraph of Article 4(3) Regulation No 1049/2001) (1) and failed to state reasons (Article 296 TFEU) because:

—

there is no decision-making process that would be seriously undermined by the partial disclosure of section 4 of the minutes of the 79th Meeting of the ‘Technical Committee — Motor Vehicles’, held in Brussels on 12 February 2019 (‘Document B’);

—

the Commission did not demonstrate that partial disclosure of section 4 of Document B would seriously undermine its decision-making process.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment and errors of law resulting in the misapplication of the overriding public interest test of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and failed to state reasons (Article 296 TFEU).

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law in relying on the Standard Rules of Procedure for Committees, which are inapplicable based on Article 277 TFEU.

(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).

Top