Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/4314

11.8.2025

(Case T-360/25)

(C/2025/4314)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Altius (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Diaz Gavier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—annul the implicit decision of the European Commission of 21 March 2025 refusing to grant access to the documents identified in the confirmatory application of 7 February 2025 under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; (1) and

—order the European Commission to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equality before the law as laid down in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Commission treated two objectively comparable situations in a clearly unequal manner, without any valid justification. Whereas the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority of India (APEDA) was granted full or partial access to nearly all the documents submitted by the Trade Development Authority of Pakistan (TDAP) in support of its application for the registration of ‘Basmati’ as a Protected Geographical Indication, TDAP’s reciprocal request for access to APEDA’s supporting materials was largely rejected.

2.Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons as laid down in Article 296 TFEU:

—first, the Commission failed to justify why it treated the applicants’ confirmatory application for access to documents differently (i.e. less favorably) than APEDA’s comparable request. Given the structural similarity between the two situations, the Commission was under a duty to provide a specific and reasoned explanation for its unequal treatment. No such explanation was offered in the context of the contested (implied) refusal;

—second, the implied refusal, by its very nature, lacks any statement of reasons. According to settled case law, any refusal to grant access to documents must be accompanied by a clear, specific and legally adequate explanation, enabling both the applicants to understand the grounds for refusal and the Court to review its legality.

3.Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to examine each document individually and failure to consider partial disclosure under Regulation No 1049/2001:

—first, the Commission failed to conduct the required specific and individual assessment of each document falling within the scope of the request. Under Article 4(1) to (3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and established case law, access can only be denied following a concrete and detailed analysis showing that disclosure would specifically and actually harm a protected interest. The Commission’s blanket refusal, embodied in its implied decision, demonstrates that no such individual examination was undertaken;

—second, the Commission disregarded its obligation under Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 to consider partial access. Even where some content may be protected, the institutions are required to grant access to any part of the documents not covered by an exception.

—

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).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4314/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—