- 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
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 October 2012.#ClientEarth v Council of the European Union.#Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Opinion issued by the legal service of the Council concerning a draft regulation of the Parliament and of the Council related to public access to the documents of the Parliament, of the Council and of the Commission — Confirmation of a refusal to grant full access — Inadmissibility — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Notion of measure open to challenge for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU — Confirmatory measure.#Case T‑62/12.
ECLI:EU:T:2012:525
62012TO0062
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
(Case T-62/12)
Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Decision refusing access to Council documents after a fresh application — Decision not identifying new factors and referring to the statement of reasons for the first decision — Purely confirmatory measure — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 4(7), 6(1), 7 and 8(1)) (see paras 19-39)
Re:
APPLICATION for the annulment of the letter of the Council of 1 December 2011 (reference 24/c/01/11) refusing to grant the applicant full access to the opinion issued by the legal service of the Council (document No 6865/09) on the draft amendments of the European Parliament to the European Commission’s draft regulation amending 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).
Operative part
1.The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
2.There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden.
3.ClientEarth is ordered to pay the costs.