EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-194/24: Action brought on 5 April 2024 – Oberlin v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0194

62024TN0194

April 5, 2024
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

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

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2024/4598

29.7.2024

(Case T-194/24)

(C/2024/4598)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Christophe Oberlin (Paris, France) (represented by: G. Devers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

order the Commission to send the documents requested to the General Court so that it can assess itself if the risk of the judicial proceedings before the International Court of Justice and the principle of equality of arms being undermined actually exists in the view of the publicity given to other procedural acts available on the official website of the International Court of Justice and in the view of the EU’s well-known position regarding the blatant illegality of the Russian invasion of Ukraine;

annul the contested decision;

order the Commission to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action seeking annulment of the implied decision of the European Commission rejecting the confirmatory application to access documents relating to information provided by the EU to the International Court of Justice in the Ukraine-Russia case, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging, principally, infringement of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1049/2001.

2.Second plea in law, alleging, principally, failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons.

3.Third plea in law, alleging, alternatively, that the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1049/2001 does not prevent the communication of the documents requested.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging, alternatively, that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents requested.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4598/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

* * *

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia