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-750/17) (*)
((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Request for access to the observations of the Commission and a detailed opinion of a Member State in the context of a notification procedure under Directive (EU) 2015/1535 - Refusal to grant access - Disclosure after commencement of the action - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
(2018/C 392/37)
Language of the case: English
Applicant: Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: P. Hoffman, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)
Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of European Commission Decision C(2017) 6020 final of 29 August 2017, rejecting the confirmatory application of the applicant for access to the Commission’s comments and the detailed opinion of the Republic of Malta issued in the framework of notification procedure 2016/398/PL, pursuant to Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (OJ 2015 L 241, p. 1).
1.There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application.
2.There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the Republic of Poland’s application for leave to intervene.
3.Each party is to bear its own costs.
4.The Republic of Poland is to bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.
(*) Language of the case: English.
(1) OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.