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
EN
Series C
(Case T-585/23)
(C/2023/772)
Language of the case: English
Applicant: Mylan Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: K. Roox, T. De Meese, J. Stuyck and C. Dumont, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—declare the applicant’s request for annulment admissible and well-founded;
—annul the European Commission’s implied negative decision of 8 July 2023 refusing the access to the requested documents, as confirmed by the out of time explicit negative decision of 11 August 2023;
—order the European Commission to grant access to the requested documents immediately; and
—order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission breached Articles 2 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) by not providing access to the requested documents.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the explicit negative decision provided out of time does not change the situation and is in any event in breach of Article 4(2) and 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission breached Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 by not providing partial access to the identified documents.
(1) 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).
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/772/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)