# C_2020297EN.01003901.xml

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/39

---

Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Pollinis France v Commission

(Case T-371/20)

(2020/C 297/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pollinis France (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Lepage, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the implied decision of the European Commission rejecting a confirmatory application for access to documents registered under reference number GESTDEM No 2020/0498 pursuant to Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the implied decision of the European Commission rejecting a confirmatory application for access to documents registered under reference number GESTDEM No 2020/0498 pursuant to Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; (1)

| — | order the European Commission to pay EUR 3 000 to the applicant for the costs of the procedure, in application of the Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay EUR 3 000 to the applicant for the costs of the procedure, in application of the Article 134(1) of the Rules of 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 the contested decision violates the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the European Commission failed to state reasons in its application of the protection of the decision-making process exception. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the contested decision violates the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the European Commission failed to state reasons in its application of the protection of the decision-making process exception.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the contested decision violates the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, since there is an overriding public interest to disclose the documents requested and that the documents requested should benefit from the wider access granted to ‘legislative documents’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the contested decision violates the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, since there is an overriding public interest to disclose the documents requested and that the documents requested should benefit from the wider access granted to ‘legislative documents’.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the contested decision violates Article 6(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2) since the exception stated in Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should be interpreted and applied all the more strictly when information requested relates to emissions into the environment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the contested decision violates Article 6(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2) since the exception stated in Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should be interpreted and applied all the more strictly when information requested relates to emissions into the environment.

---

(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)  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).

---