- 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-205/22: Action brought on 15 April 2022 — Naass and Sea Watch v Frontex
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0205
62022TN0205
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
27.6.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 244/39
(Case T-205/22)
(2022/C 244/52)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Marie Naass (Berlin, Germany), Sea Watch eV (Berlin) (represented by: I. Van Damme and Q. Declève, lawyers)
Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—annul Frontex Decision DGSC/TO/PAD-2021-00350 of 7 February 2022;
—order Frontex to bear the costs of the applicants.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that, in its Decision DGSC/TO/PAD-2021-00350 of 7 February 2022, Frontex did not appropriately state the reasons for its refusal to disclose certain documents pertaining to a specific event that took place in the Mediterranean sea on 30 July 2021, on the basis of the public security exception under Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1)
2.Second plea in law, alleging that Decision DGSC/TO/PAD-2021-00350 of 7 February 2022 violates Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001 by refusing partial access to the requested 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).