12.4.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/41

(Case T-52/21)

(2021/C 128/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the implied decision of the defendant of 16 November 2020 to refuse access to certain requested documents related to fisheries controls pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006; (2)

—order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that, as a result of the failure to address to the applicant an express decision regarding its request for access, within the time-limits for processing of confirmatory applications contained in Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, the defendant impliedly refused access within the meaning of Article 8(3) thereof. It is argued that this implied refusal decision was unmotivated and the applicant therefore submits that it should be annulled because of the Commission’s breach of its obligation to state reasons under Article 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, Article 41(2), third indent, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 296 TFEU.

Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

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 on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).