# C_2011252EN.01004601.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/46

---

Action brought on 7 July 2011 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission

(Case T-362/11)

2011/C 252/97

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that the Commission’s decision of 6 May 2011 is in violation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Commission’s decision of 6 May 2011 is in violation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1);

1

| — | Declare that the Commission’s decision of 6 May 2011 is in violation of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Commission’s decision of 6 May 2011 is in violation of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (2);

2

| — | Annul the Commission’s decision of 6 May 2011; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s decision of 6 May 2011; and

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for not deciding within the prescribed time-limits on the applicants’ confirmatory application and not providing detailed reasons for doing so. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for not deciding within the prescribed time-limits on the applicants’ confirmatory application and not providing detailed reasons for doing so.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4 of the Aarhus Convention, Article 4(2) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 for failure to assess, as:






  — | the ground for refusal is not compliant with the Aarhus Convention; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4 of the Aarhus Convention, Article 4(2) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 for failure to assess, as:

—

the ground for refusal is not compliant with the Aarhus Convention;

| — | the information requested qualifies as information relating to emissions into the environment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the information requested qualifies as information relating to emissions into the environment; and

| — | there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the information requested by the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

—

there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the information requested by the applicants.

---

(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)

1

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13)

2

---