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 62021TN0201

    Case T-201/21: Action brought on 6 April 2021 — Covington & Burling and Van Vooren v Commission

    OJ C 217, 7.6.2021, p. 62–63 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    7.6.2021   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 217/62

    Action brought on 6 April 2021 — Covington & Burling and Van Vooren v Commission

    (Case T-201/21)

    (2021/C 217/78)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicants: Covington & Burling (Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, Belgium) and Bart Van Vooren (Meise, Belgium) (represented by: P. Diaz Gavier, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicants claim that the Court should:

    —

    annul the decision of the Commission of 12 March 2021 refusing to grant access to the requested documents (1) under the Transparency Regulation;

    —

    order the Commission to grant access to the requested documents immediately; and

    —

    order the Commission to pay Covington’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in relying on Article 4(3), second indent, of the Transparency Regulation (2) to justify its refusal to grant access to the requested documents.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that, even if Article 4(3), second indent, of the Transparency Regulation applied, or any other ground of Article 4 thereof, the Commission has failed to demonstrate how the requested documents met the requirements.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in relying on the Comitology Regulation (3) to support its refusal to grant access to the requested documents.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in relying on Standard Rules of Procedure for Committees to support its refusal; and

    5.

    Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates general principles of transparency and undermines the democratic legitimacy of implementing acts.

    (1)  Editorial note: The requested documents concern a comitology procedure and, in particular, documents relating to the voting record of certain Member States with regard to the draft Commission Regulation amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards botanical species containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives.

    (2)  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).

    (3)  Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13).

    Top