- 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-761/21: Action brought on 6 December 2021 — Courtois and Others v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0761
62021TN0761
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
31.1.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 51/38
(Case T-761/21)
(2022/C 51/51)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicants: Fabien Courtois (Rueil-Malmaison, France) and 2088 other applicants (represented by: A. Durand, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—declare the applicants’ claims admissible and well founded;
—annul the implied decision of rejection of 24 September 2021 arising from the failure to reply to the confirmatory application submitted by the applicants on 13 August 2021;
—order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law based on the admissibility of the action. The applicants claim, in that regard, that they have standing as applicants entitled to bring an action for the purposes of Article 8(3) of 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 (1) (‘Regulation 1049/2001’) and as addressees of the contested act within the meaning of Article 263(4) TFEU. The applicants further state that they have an interest in bringing proceedings arising from the Commission’s refusal of access to documents in its implied decision of rejection of 24 September 2021 and the infringement of their fundamental rights by the contested decision.
2.Second plea in law based on the internal legality of the Commission’s decision. The applicants claim that the Commission infringed the applicants’ right of access to documents by relying on incomplete and erroneous grounds. The applicants further argue that they rely on overriding public interests which justify access to the documents. Lastly, the applicants consider that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality in that it went beyond what was necessary to achieve its objectives.
* Language of the case: French.
(1) OJ 2021 L 145, p. 43.