# C_2021206EN.01003401.xml

| 31.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/34

---

Action brought on 31 March 2021 — Agrofert v Parliament

(Case T-174/21)

(2021/C 206/42)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Agrofert, a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: S. Sobolová, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul the European Parliament’s decision of 15 January 2021, A (2019) 8551 C (D 300153), refusing to grant the applicant access to the documents requested under 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Parliament’s decision of 15 January 2021, A (2019) 8551 C (D 300153), refusing to grant the applicant access to the documents requested under 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;

| — | order the defendant to pay all costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all costs;

| — | make any further provision that it deems necessary. |
| --- | --- |

—

make any further provision that it deems necessary.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | The first plea in law is based on the claim that the defendant did not establish that the conditions for refusing access to the requested documents were fulfilled in accordance with 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. Disclosure of the requested documents could not lead to the undermining of the protection of the purpose of investigations, as invoked by the defendant. The defendant did not establish that in the present case granting access to the documents, whose content is actually already partially in the public domain, would pose any risk of specific and actual harm to that investigation, let alone that such a risk is reasonably foreseeable. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first plea in law is based on the claim that the defendant did not establish that the conditions for refusing access to the requested documents were fulfilled in accordance with 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. Disclosure of the requested documents could not lead to the undermining of the protection of the purpose of investigations, as invoked by the defendant. The defendant did not establish that in the present case granting access to the documents, whose content is actually already partially in the public domain, would pose any risk of specific and actual harm to that investigation, let alone that such a risk is reasonably foreseeable.

| 2. | The second plea in law is based on the claim that, moreover, the defendant entirely disregarded the overriding public interest in disclosing the requested documents, which in this case consists in respect for the values of the rule of law based on observance of fundamental rights and freedoms. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second plea in law is based on the claim that, moreover, the defendant entirely disregarded the overriding public interest in disclosing the requested documents, which in this case consists in respect for the values of the rule of law based on observance of fundamental rights and freedoms.

---