I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
(Case T-17/22) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)
(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - OLAF investigation concerning the public lighting activities of Élios Innovatív - Application for access to the final investigation report - Implied refusal of access - Express decision to grant access adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)
(2022/C 284/57)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Applicant: Bertalan Tóth (Pécs, Hungary) (represented by: Á. Baratta and B. Czudar, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Béres and A. Spina, acting as Agents)
By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the implied decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 10 November 2021 by which OLAF rejected his confirmatory application for access to the document entitled ‘Final OLAF Report OF/2015/0034/B4 concerning the public lighting activities of Élios Innovatív Zrt’.
1.There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.
2.The European Commission shall pay the costs.
(<span class="oj-super">1</span>) OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.