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-205/25: Action brought on 27 March 2025 – Rizza v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025TN0205

62025TN0205

March 27, 2025
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/2025/3301

24.6.2025

(Case T-205/25)

(C/2025/3301)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giulio Cesare Rizza (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa and G. Lodigiani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Commission’s decision C(2025) 1119 final of 12 February 2025, refusing, pursuant to Article 8(1) of EU Regulation No 1049/2001 (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>), to grant access to the blank form attached to the standard request for assistance under Article 22(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">2</span>) from a national competition authority to the national competition authority of another Member State (the ‘document’),

order the Commission to provide full access to the unredacted version of the document;

in the alternative, annul the decision and order the Commission to provide access to a redacted version of the document, in which only the number of weeks indicated at pages 5 and 6 (Periods I-III) are not disclosed; and

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the decision violated Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001, by refusing full access to the document. Indeed, such disclosure would not, in any way undermine the purpose of inspections and investigations, contrary to what the Commission stated in its decision.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that there is no need for the applicant to show the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure: the decision erred in considering that – although the Commission failed to demonstrate, in the first place, that access to the document would specifically and actually seriously undermine the purpose of inspections and investigations – the applicant was obliged to indicate an overriding public interest that could justify the disclosure of the document.

(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).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3301/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