EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-307/16: Action brought on 17 June 2016 — CEE Bankwatch Network v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0307

62016TN0307

June 17, 2016
With Google you find a lot.
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

22.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/39

(Case T-307/16)

(2016/C 305/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CEE Bankwatch Network (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: C. Kiss, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the contested Commission Decision of 15 April 2016, reference number Ref. GestDem No 2015/5866 null and void; and

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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 Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 is applicable to Euratom documents:

the word ‘Treaty’ should not be understood in different contexts regarding each piece of EU legislation, but that it should have a uniform meaning.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful:

access to the required documents does not endanger the interest of nuclear safety because the request for information did not affect nuclear safety issues;

the defendant seriously breached its obligation stemming from Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and applicable case law of the EU Court to give specific reasons for non-disclosure.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the reference by the defendant to the protection of commercial interest is flawed and fails to specify the general considerations on which it bases the presumption that disclosure of the required documents would undermine commercial interest:

the information withheld by the defendant as affecting commercial interest does not satisfy the criteria of commercial information and its age is not taken into account when deciding by the defendant upon the confirmatory application;

there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested data given that public interest is in the disclosure of nuclear information.

Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ L 264, 25.9.2006, p. 13)

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 L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia