Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014TN0250

Case T-250/14: Action brought on 22 April 2014 — EEB v Commission

OJ C 194, 24.6.2014, p. 30–31 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

24.6.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/30


Action brought on 22 April 2014 — EEB v Commission

(Case T-250/14)

2014/C 194/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Stothers, Solicitor, M. Van Kerckhove and C. Simphal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the implied decision of the European Commission of 13 February 2014 deemed under Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) as a negative reply refusing to release complete and unredacted copies of correspondence with two Member States regarding their proposed Transitional National Plans (TNPs), exempting certain combustion plants from new emission limits between 2016 and 2020;

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has unlawfully relied on Article 4(2) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in a case where this is specifically precluded by Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (2).

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has unlawfully failed to interpret the exceptions of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in a restrictive way as required by Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and Article 4(4) of the Aarhus Convention.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has unlawfully consulted third parties under Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in a case where it is clear that the document should have been disclosed, and unlawfully relied on this consultation to extend its time to respond.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has unlawfully failed to consider which parts of a document are covered by any exception and release the remainder under Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

5.

Fifth plea in laws, alleging that by delaying access, the defendant has unlawfully failed to provide early and effective opportunities for the public to participate during the preparation, modification and review of the TNPs when all options are still open as required by Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006.


(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)


Top