- 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-77/22: Action brought on 9 February 2022 — Asesores Comunitarios v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0077
62022TN0077
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
28.3.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 138/31
(Case T-77/22)
(2022/C 138/36)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Asesores Comunitarios SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Monrabà Bagan, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the Decision No C(2021) 8946 final of 3 December 2021 refusing the disclosure of the recovery and resilience plan of Spain; and
—order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 4(1)(a), forth indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) by undermining the public interest as regard the financial and economic policy. It is furthermore alleged that the contested decision has not accurately stated the facts related to a hypothetical threat to the economic stability of the Kingdom of Spain because of the disclosure of its Recovery and Resilience Plan to the applicant.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by considering that public disclosure of the requested documents would infringe the privacy and the integrity of individuals mentioned in these documents.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by considering that public disclosure of the requested documents would seriously undermine the ongoing decision-making process.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by considering that no overriding public interest in disclosing the requested documents has been established prevailing over the need to protect the ongoing decision-making process.
* Language of the case: English.
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. 43-48).