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 62010TN0395

    Case T-395/10: Action brought on 14 September 2010 — Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v Commission

    OJ C 301, 6.11.2010, p. 50–51 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    6.11.2010   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 301/50

    Action brought on 14 September 2010 — Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v Commission

    (Case T-395/10)

    ()

    2010/C 301/80

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor, and S. Santoro, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    —

    annul the implied refusal of the applicant’s confirmatory application;

    —

    order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), of the access to certain documents relating to the trade negotiations between the EU and India.

    In support of its application the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.

    First, it claims that the Commission infringed the Regulation No 1049/2001 by failing to reply to the confirmatory application within the prescribed time.

    Second, the applicant contends that the Commission infringed the Regulation No 1049/2001 and the Treaty by constructively rejecting a confirmatory application without giving any reasons or without giving reasons to the standards required by the Treaty and by the Court.

    Third, it submits that by failing to reply to the confirmatory application the Commission infringed an essential procedural requirement and/or committed an error of law.

    (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