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-257/17: Action brought on 3 May 2017 — RE v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0257

62017TN0257

May 3, 2017
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

10.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/33

(Case T-257/17)

(2017/C 221/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: RE (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

order the annulment of the Security Directorate’s implied decision tacitly rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents of 20 January 2017;

order the defendant to pay to the applicant a fair and equitable compensation for non-material damages from the unlawful refusal to treat his access to documents application in violation of the provision of Regulation No 1049/2001; and,

order the defendant to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant in the current proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

With the present application, the applicant asks for the annulment of the aforementioned contested implied decision for two reasons: firstly the failure of the contested decision to state reasons as regards the non-disclosure of the 15 documents requested by the applicant, which were not mentioned in the decision of 22 December 2016 that rejected the applicant’s initial request for access to documents; and secondly, the lack of, or, in any case, the erroneous justification for the non-disclosure of the other documents, if it were to be considered that the reasoning of the decision of 22 December 2016 rejecting the applicant’s initial request for access is incorporated in the contested implied decision.

Finally, the applicant requests the award of appropriate compensation for the moral damage he incurred, which stemmed from the administration’s persistent delays and the unlawful refusal to grant him access to the documents in question, in violation of the provisions of Regulation 1049/2001.

(1) 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 L 145, 2001, p. 43)

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