Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014TN0716

Case T-716/14: Action brought on 9 October 2014 — Tweedale/EFSA

OJ C 448, 15.12.2014, p. 33–34 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

15.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/33


Action brought on 9 October 2014 — Tweedale/EFSA

(Case T-716/14)

(2014/C 448/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Antony C. Tweedale (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare that EFSA acted in violation of the Aarhus Convention, of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and of the Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 concerning the Commission’s decision of 10 August 2011;

annul EFSA’s decision of 30 July 2014;

order EFSA to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested decision, EFSA acted in breach of Article 4(4) of the United Nations Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters of 25 June 1998 (‘Aarhus Convention’) as approved by the Council Decision 2005/370/EC, of 17 February 2005, as well as in breach of Article 6(1) of 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 to Community institutions and bodies (‘the Aarhus Regulation’) and of Article 4(2) of Regulation No (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. In breach of these provisions EFSA did not recognise in the contested Decision the obligation to disclose information relating to emissions into the environment contained in the documents requested.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested Decision, EFSA acted in breach of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and of its obligation to act in compliance with an Aarhus Convention compliant interpretation of the ground of refusal laid down in Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on the basis of Article 4(4) of the Aarhus Convention.


Top