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 62021TN0354

Case T-354/21: Action brought on 17 June 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission

OJ C 329, 16.8.2021, p. 36–37 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

16.8.2021   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/36

Action brought on 17 June 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-354/21)

(2021/C 329/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer, B. Verheijen and T. van Helfteren, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 7 April 2021 refusing to grant access to the requested documents, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, (2) related to the state of the implementation of the fisheries control in France and Denmark and on the existence of pilot cases and infringement procedures in the European Union relating to the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, (3) and

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed errors of law and manifest errors of assessment resulting in the misapplication of the inspections, investigations and audits exception, pursuant to Article 4(2), third indent, of the Transparency Regulation and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and also alleging the infringement of the duty to state reasons.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant incorrectly rejected the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure of 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).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 1).

Top