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-1130/23: Action brought on 1 December 2023 — Smart Kid v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TN1130

62023TN1130

December 1, 2023
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

Series C

C/2024/968

29.1.2024

(Case T-1130/23)

(C/2024/968)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Smart Kid S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: Z. Kiedacz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the implied decision of the European Commission of 22 September 2023 adopted in the case examined by the European Commission under ref. EASE 2023/2923 rejecting Smart Kid’s request of 17 May 2023 for access to public documents, submitted on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001;

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

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 infringement of Article 15(3) TFEU in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation No 1049/2001. (1)

Article 15(3) TFEU in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation No 1049/2001 provide for the right of any legal person having its registered office in a Member State to access documents of the Union’s bodies, in accordance with the general principles and limits governing the exercise of that right, which are set out in that regulation. The adoption by the European Commission of the implied rejection decision for the purposes of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, manifestly infringes that right.

2.Second plea in law alleging that the Commission infringed the obligation to state reasons.

As is apparent from Article 296(2) TFEU, legal acts adopted by EU institutions must state the reasons on which they are based. The statement of reasons must be appropriate to the act at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the act. As regards the Commission’s adoption of the implied rejection decision for the purposes of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, that decision was not accompanied by any reasons, which manifestly infringes the obligation to state reasons.

(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/2024/968/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

JUDGMENT OF 6. 3. 2025 – CASE C-41/24 WALTHAM ABBEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

* * *

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