- 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-255/20: Action brought on 4 May 2020 — ClientEarth v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0255
62020TN0255
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
27.7.2020
Official Journal of the European Union
C 247/18
(Case T-255/20)
(2020/C 247/27)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Logue, Solicitor, and J. Kenny, Barrister-at-law)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the implied decision of the European Commission dated 26 February 2020 in case GESTDEM No 2019/6819 refusing the applicant’s request for access to documents in part;
—rule on the costs and order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs as well as order any intervening parties to carry their own costs
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment and errors of law resulting in the misapplication of the protection of the decision-making process exception (second subparagraph of Article 4(3) Regulation No 1049/2001) and failed to state reasons (Article 296 TFEU) because:
—there is no decision-making process that would be seriously undermined by the partial disclosure of section 4 of the minutes of the 79th Meeting of the ‘Technical Committee — Motor Vehicles’, held in Brussels on 12 February 2019 (‘Document B’);
—the Commission did not demonstrate that partial disclosure of section 4 of Document B would seriously undermine its decision-making process.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment and errors of law resulting in the misapplication of the overriding public interest test of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and failed to state reasons (Article 296 TFEU).
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law in relying on the Standard Rules of Procedure for Committees, which are inapplicable based on Article 277 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).