# C_2020399EN.01003801.xml

| 23.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/38

---

Action brought on 8 September 2020 — Pollinis France v Commission

(Case T-554/20)

(2020/C 399/54)

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 explicit decision of the European Commission of 21 July 2020 rejecting a confirmatory application for access to documents registered under reference number GESTDEM No 2020/2083 pursuant to Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the explicit decision of the European Commission of 21 July 2020 rejecting a confirmatory application for access to documents registered under reference number GESTDEM No 2020/2083 pursuant to Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1);

| — | join the current procedure with the procedure registered under case number T-371/20; |
| --- | --- |

—

join the current procedure with the procedure registered under case number T-371/20;

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

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that 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 that 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 that 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 that 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 that the contested decision violates Article 6(1) of 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 the information requested relates to emissions into the environment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 6(1) of 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 the information requested relates to emissions into the environment.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision cannot be based on the protection of the privacy and the integrity of the individual, since Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 provides that ‘If only parts of the requested document are covered by any of the exceptions, the remaining parts of the document shall be released’. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision cannot be based on the protection of the privacy and the integrity of the individual, since Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 provides that ‘If only parts of the requested document are covered by any of the exceptions, the remaining parts of the document shall be released’.

---

(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).

---