- 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-9/19: Action brought on 8 January 2019 — ClientEarth v EIB
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0009
62019TN0009
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
25.2.2019
Official Journal of the European Union
C 72/43
(Case T-9/19)
(2019/C 72/55)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Flynn, QC and H. Leith, barrister)
Defendant: European Investment Bank
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—annul the refusal of the EIB to conduct an internal review pursuant to Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation (1);
—order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging errors in law in the application of the Aarhus Regulation, with regard to the status of ClientEarth as a non-governmental organisation, the concept of ‘administrative act’, the definition of measures of individual scope, the legal effects of the EIB Board of Directors’ decision, as well as the limits of ‘environmental law’.
2.Second plea in law, alleging failure of the defendant to provide adequate reasons as required by Article 296 TFEU.
(1) 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.