Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2024/6942

25.11.2024

(Case T-458/24)

(C/2024/6942)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) (New Delhi, India) (represented by: M. Hommé and B. O’Connor, lawyers), Bernard O’Connor (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Hommé, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—annul the Commission’s implied rejection decision of the request to access to documents (1) under Article 8(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, (2) dated 1 July 2024, in response to the confirmatory application filed by the applicants following a request to access documents filed by them on 27 March 2024 under Regulation 1049/2001, and grant them access to the annexes in question;

—order the Commission to pay the costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging the Commission erred manifestly, failed to state the facts and failed to adequately state the reasons, in considering that the disclosure of the documents would undermine international relations within the terms of Article 4(1)(a), third indent, of Regulation 1049/2001.

—The Commission, it is argued, erred manifestly in considering that it independently examined all the circumstances of the request to determine if the exception in Article 4(1)(a), third indent, of Regulation 1049/2001 applied.

—The Commission failed to state the facts by failing to examine each document individually referred to in the request for access to documents.

2.Second plea in law, alleging the Commission erred manifestly, and failed to state the reasons, in considering that the commercial interests of operators will be undermined within the terms of Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation 1049/2001.

—The applicants assert that the Commission erred manifestly in holding that disclosure of the documents requested would have undermined the commercial interests of operators.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed adequately to state the reasons for its refusal, both within the terms of Articles 4(1) and 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, to grant access to all the annexes to the specifications in question and, in particular, to the annexes proving the origin of ‘Basmati’ in the growing areas claimed.

—The Commission, it is finally argued, failed to state reasons for the invoking of the exceptions in Articles 4(1)(a), third indent, and 4(2), first indent, of Regulation 1049/2001, in breach of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

*

Editorial note: the access to documents request concerns certain documents annexed to the specifications accompanying the application to the European Commission by the Trade Development Authority of Pakistan for the registration of the name ‘Basmati’ as a protected geographical indication, introduced on behalf of the growers and processors of Basmati rice in Pakistan.

Regulation 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/2024/6942/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

* * *