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 62022TN0017

    Case T-17/22: Action brought on 8 January 2022 — Tóth v Commission

    OJ C 84, 21.2.2022, p. 53–53 (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 84, 21.2.2022, p. 23–23 (GA)

    21.2.2022   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 84/53

    Action brought on 8 January 2022 — Tóth v Commission

    (Case T-17/22)

    (2022/C 84/74)

    Language of the case: Hungarian

    Parties

    Applicant: Bertalan Tóth (Pécs, Hungary) (represented by: Á. Baratta and B. Czudar, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to refuse access to the document entitled ‘Final Report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) OF/2015/0034/B4 relating to public lighting activities by Élios Innovatív Zrt.’ by not giving a decision, within the time limit laid down in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, (1) on the confirmatory application for access submitted by the applicant.

    —

    order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

    —

    OLAF failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons by refusing, without providing justification in accordance with the law, access to the document entitled ‘Final Report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) OF/2015/0034/B4 relating to public lighting activities by Élios Innovatív Zrt.’.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the refusal to grant the request for access is unlawful.

    —

    OLAF refused to grant the request for access without satisfying any of the exceptions provided for in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 that would justify the refusal of the requests for access.

    (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