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-225/24: Action brought on 26 April 2024 – Huhtamaki Holding v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0225

62024TN0225

April 26, 2024
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

EN

C series

C/2024/3783

(Case T-225/24)

(C/2024/3783)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Huhtamaki Holding Sàrl (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Struys, F. Pili, H. de Cazotte and L. Burgaud, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Commission Decision C(2024) 1212 final of 19 February 2024, which refused the applicant’s confirmatory application of 31 August 2023 for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) (‘the contested decision’);

order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in considering that the general presumption of non-disclosure established by the case law is applicable with respect to the Requested documents.

2.Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that even in the event that the general presumption of non-disclosure would be applicable in the present case, it would be reversed. The applicant claims that:

the absence of any possible harm for the interests protected by Article 4(2), first and third indents, of Regulation 1049/2001 rebuts the application of the general presumption of non-disclosure (first limb of the second plea);

in the alternative, the application of the general presumption would, in any event, be reversed, since there are overriding reasons of public interest justifying disclosure of the requested documents (second limb of the second plea).

3.Third plea in law, alleging, in addition to the first and second pleas, that the Commission violated the requirements to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU and the applicant’s right to good administration provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(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 2001 L 145, p. 43).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3783/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

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