- 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-250/14: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — EEB v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Correspondence between the Commission and two Member States regarding the implementation of a Transitional National Plan (TNP) under Directive 2010/75/EU — Implied refusal of access — No need to adjudicate — New claims — Inadmissibility)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TB0250
62014TB0250
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
29.6.2015
Official Journal of the European Union
C 213/36
(Case T-250/14)(*1)
((Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Correspondence between the Commission and two Member States regarding the implementation of a Transitional National Plan (TNP) under Directive 2010/75/EU - Implied refusal of access - No need to adjudicate - New claims - Inadmissibility))
(2015/C 213/60)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Stothers, Solicitor, M. Van Kerckhove and C. Simphal, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)
Re:
Application for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission of 13 February 2014 refusing access to documents from the Republic of Bulgaria and the Czech Republic.
Operative part of the order
1)There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claims of the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) for the annulment of the implied decision of the European Commission of 13 February 2014 refusing access to documents from the Republic of Bulgaria and the Czech Republic.
2)The claims for damages presented by the EEB are dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
3)The Commission is ordered to pay, in addition to its own costs, those of the EEB.
(*1) OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.