This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021TN0682
Case T-682/21: Action brought on 19 October 2021 — ClientEarth v Council
Case T-682/21: Action brought on 19 October 2021 — ClientEarth v Council
Case T-682/21: Action brought on 19 October 2021 — ClientEarth v Council
IO C 37, 24.1.2022, p. 35–37
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
24.1.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 37/35 |
Action brought on 19 October 2021 — ClientEarth v Council
(Case T-682/21)
(2022/C 37/49)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer, B. Verheijen and T. van Helfteren, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the defendant’s decision of 9 August 2021, reference SGS 21/2870, received by the applicant on 9 August 2021, to refuse access to certain documents requested pursuant to 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 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of 6 September 2006 on the application 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; (2) |
— |
order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs relating to any intervening parties. |
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 errors of law and manifest error of assessment resulting in the misapplication of the protection of the decision-making process exemption (first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001), because the disclosure would not seriously undermine the invoked decision-making process.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging errors of law and manifest error of assessment resulting in the misapplication of the protection of legal advice exemption (second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001), because disclosure would not seriously undermine the protection of legal advice.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging errors of law and manifest error of assessment resulting in the misapplication of the decision-making process exemption (first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001) and the protection of legal advice exemption (second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001), because the contested decision failed to recognise and grant access on the basis of an overriding public interest.
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging errors of law and manifest error of assessment resulting in the misapplication of the protection of the international relations exception (third indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation 1049/2001).
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, in subsidiary order, alleging errors of law and manifest error of assessment resulting in the misapplication of the obligation to provide partial access to documents (Article 4(6) Regulation 1049/2001).
|
(2) OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13. Editorial note: the requested document relates to the decision-making process concerning the proposed revision of Regulation 1367/2006.