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-174/21: Action brought on 31 March 2021 — Agrofert v Parliament

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0174

62021TN0174

March 31, 2021
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

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/34

(Case T-174/21)

(2021/C 206/42)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Agrofert, a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: S. Sobolová, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

annul the European Parliament’s decision of 15 January 2021, A (2019) 8551 C (D 300153), refusing to grant the applicant access to the documents requested under 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;

order the defendant to pay all costs;

make any further provision that it deems necessary.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1.The first plea in law is based on the claim that the defendant did not establish that the conditions for refusing access to the requested documents were fulfilled in accordance with 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. Disclosure of the requested documents could not lead to the undermining of the protection of the purpose of investigations, as invoked by the defendant. The defendant did not establish that in the present case granting access to the documents, whose content is actually already partially in the public domain, would pose any risk of specific and actual harm to that investigation, let alone that such a risk is reasonably foreseeable.

2.The second plea in law is based on the claim that, moreover, the defendant entirely disregarded the overriding public interest in disclosing the requested documents, which in this case consists in respect for the values of the rule of law based on observance of fundamental rights and freedoms.

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