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 62011TN0362

    Case T-362/11: Action brought on 7 July 2011 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission

    IO C 252, 27.8.2011, p. 46–46 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    27.8.2011   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 252/46

    Action brought on 7 July 2011 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission

    (Case T-362/11)

    2011/C 252/97

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicants: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    —

    Declare that the Commission’s decision of 6 May 2011 is in violation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1);

    —

    Declare that the Commission’s decision of 6 May 2011 is in violation of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (2);

    —

    Annul the Commission’s decision of 6 May 2011; and

    —

    Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for not deciding within the prescribed time-limits on the applicants’ confirmatory application and not providing detailed reasons for doing so.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4 of the Aarhus Convention, Article 4(2) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 for failure to assess, as:

    —

    the ground for refusal is not compliant with the Aarhus Convention;

    —

    the information requested qualifies as information relating to emissions into the environment; and

    —

    there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the information requested by the applicants.

    (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