- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-475/17: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Rogesa v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Documents concerning an installation producing a mixture of pellets and sintered ore — Implied refusal of access — Express decision adopted before the action was brought — Application for an order that there is no need to adjudicate — Interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TB0475
62017TB0475
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
12.2.2018
Official Journal of the European Union
C 52/31
(Case T-475/17)(*1)
((Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Documents concerning an installation producing a mixture of pellets and sintered ore - Implied refusal of access - Express decision adopted before the action was brought - Application for an order that there is no need to adjudicate - Interest in bringing proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility))
(2018/C 052/44)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and A. Sitzer, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer, acting as Agent)
Re:
Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, primarily, annulment of the Commission’s implied decision of 20 June 2017 and, in the alternative, of the decision of 11 July 2017 refusing to grant access to the document Ares (2017) 1684109 of 2 November 2009 and the document Ares (2017) 1685639 of 29 November 2009.
Operative part of the order
1.The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.
2.Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH and the European Commission shall bear their own respective costs.
(*1) OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
* * *