# C_2022119EN.01005601.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/56

---

Action brought on 23 January 2022 — Swords v Commission and ECDC

(Case T-55/22)

(2022/C 119/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Patrick Swords (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: G. M. Byrne, Barrister-at-law)

Defendants: European Commission and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the ECDC’s risk assessment of 24 November 2021, ECDC’s statement of 24 November 2021, ECDC’s threat assessments of 26 November 2021 and 2 December 2021 and ECDC’s risk assessment of 15 December 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the ECDC’s risk assessment of 24 November 2021, ECDC’s statement of 24 November 2021, ECDC’s threat assessments of 26 November 2021 and 2 December 2021 and ECDC’s risk assessment of 15 December 2021;

| — | declare that the Commission’s communication to the Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 1 December 2021 as well as the coordinated approach of the Commission and the Health Security Committee of 10 December 2021 are inapplicable pursuant Article 277 TFUE; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Commission’s communication to the Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 1 December 2021 as well as the coordinated approach of the Commission and the Health Security Committee of 10 December 2021 are inapplicable pursuant Article 277 TFUE; and

| — | order the defendants to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay the costs.

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 ECDC failed to follow essential procedural requirements, including its own internal rules and code of good administrative behaviour. It is argued that ECDC disregarded recognized risk assessment methodology, failed to accord with the requisite standards, including that of scientific excellence and independence, and failed to fulfil its legal obligations in the production and publishing of the contested acts. It is further argued that the contested risk assessment reports are grossly misleading and alarmist, the effects of which were foreseeable to the ECDC and a foregone conclusion due to the reliance placed upon those reports by Union institutions and Member States alike. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that ECDC failed to follow essential procedural requirements, including its own internal rules and code of good administrative behaviour. It is argued that ECDC disregarded recognized risk assessment methodology, failed to accord with the requisite standards, including that of scientific excellence and independence, and failed to fulfil its legal obligations in the production and publishing of the contested acts. It is further argued that the contested risk assessment reports are grossly misleading and alarmist, the effects of which were foreseeable to the ECDC and a foregone conclusion due to the reliance placed upon those reports by Union institutions and Member States alike.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that ECDC infringed the EU Treaties, ignored the rule of law, violated his fundamental rights by failing to fulfil its duties and obligations set out in the EU Treaties in the production and publication of the contested acts. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that ECDC infringed the EU Treaties, ignored the rule of law, violated his fundamental rights by failing to fulfil its duties and obligations set out in the EU Treaties in the production and publication of the contested acts.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that in producing and publishing the contested acts, the ECDC infringed general principles of EU law including the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and legitimate expectation, as well as infringing the applicant’s fundamental rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that in producing and publishing the contested acts, the ECDC infringed general principles of EU law including the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and legitimate expectation, as well as infringing the applicant’s fundamental rights.

| 4. | Forth plea in law, alleging that ECDC misused its powers. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Forth plea in law, alleging that ECDC misused its powers.

| 5. | The applicant also raises an objection of inapplicability, pursuant Article 277 TFUE, in respect of the Commission’s communication to the Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 1 December 2021 as well as the coordinated approach of the Commission and the Health Security Committee of 10 December 2021. It is argued that since the aforementioned acts were formulated and published on foot of the contested ECDC’s risk assessments, it follows that they have been rendered unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The applicant also raises an objection of inapplicability, pursuant Article 277 TFUE, in respect of the Commission’s communication to the Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 1 December 2021 as well as the coordinated approach of the Commission and the Health Security Committee of 10 December 2021. It is argued that since the aforementioned acts were formulated and published on foot of the contested ECDC’s risk assessments, it follows that they have been rendered unlawful.

---