Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/3311

24.6.2025

(Case T-276/25)

(C/2025/3311)

Language of the case: Croatian

Parties

Applicant: Galić d.o.o. za proizvodnju i usluge (Kutjevo, Croatia) (represented by: T. Sadrić, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Commission Decision C(2025) 1384 final of 26 February 2025, entitled Your repeated request for access to documents on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001  EASE 2024/0137, as well as the decision of the European Commissions Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI) immediately preceding it of 23 February 2024 (Ref. Ares (2024)1413289), and order the Commission to issue a new decision regarding the applicants request;

—order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the substantive conditions for applying the exception concerning the protection of court proceedings in relation to documents originating from the Commission have not been satisfied

—By this plea, the applicant argues that the contested decision of the Commission is substantively incorrect in so far as it places documents originating from the Commission on the same footing as documents originating from the Croatian authorities. The applicant argues that application of the data access exception concerning the protection of court proceedings is possible for documents originating from the Commission only where the Commission is a party to those court proceedings. As this is not the situation in the present case, the applicant argues that there were no grounds for applying that exception to the Commissions documents.

2.Second plea in law, alleging there is not a close link between the documents and ongoing proceedings which would justify the application of the exception concerning the protection of court proceedings

—By this plea, the applicant argues that there is not a close link between the requested documents and ongoing court proceedings; nor was there any relevant connection, which is, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, an essential prerequisite for the application of the exception concerning the protection of court proceedings.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that enabling access in this specific case would not be in breach of the principle of equality of arms

—By this plea, the applicant argues that the exception concerning the protection of court proceedings should not be applied without reservation in order to protect the principle of the equality of arms for the benefit of the author of the document, because the person requesting access may have a more important legal interest that needs to be protected, such as the rights of the defence.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons for its reliance on the exception concerning the protection of court proceedings

—By this plea, the applicant refers to the general and sweeping statements made by the Commission, which (i) do not constitute an adequate statement of reasons for the contested decision and (ii) indicate the arbitrary nature of the treatment.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the applicants procedural rights by relying on the protection of commercial interests and of personal data, although it did not refer, in its initial decision, to those grounds for application of the exception

—By this plea, the applicant argues that the Commission infringed its right to be heard before the adoption of a decision which could adversely affect it, because it was not possible for the applicant to infer from the previous decision that the Commission would subsequently also rely on the exception concerning the protection of commercial interests and of personal data, and thus the applicant did not have the possibility of expressing its views thereon in its repeated request for access.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that the exception concerning the protection of commercial interests and of personal data cannot be applied, because the data concerned have been published in the press and are available to the general public

—By this plea, the applicant argues that the protection of commercial interests and of personal data relied on is meaningless because the data concerned were published and made available to the public by leading media some time ago.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging that there is an overriding public interest in access to the data requested

—By this plea, the applicant argues that there is an overriding public interest in clarifying doubts as to whether the EU institutions have exceeded their powers and have exerted pressure on the Croatian authorities, and that this is a ground for granting access to the requested documents.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3311/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—