# C_2021481EN.01003802.xml

| 29.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 481/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 481/38

---

Action brought on 5 October 2021 — Foodwatch v Commission

(Case T-643/21)

(2021/C 481/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Foodwatch eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Klinger, C. Douhaire and S. Ernst, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 5 August 2021 (C(2021)5963 final) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application of 6 May 2021 for full access to the document ‘Briefing for the EU RCF co-chair for the Regulatory Cooperation Forum meeting on 3-4 February 2020’ (Ares(2021)1264866), in so far as the rejection is based on the ground for refusal laid down in the third indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 5 August 2021 (C(2021)5963 final) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application of 6 May 2021 for full access to the document ‘Briefing for the EU RCF co-chair for the Regulatory Cooperation Forum meeting on 3-4 February 2020’ (Ares(2021)1264866), in so far as the rejection is based on the ground for refusal laid down in the third indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings including those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings including those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision C(2021)5963 final of 5 August 2021, refusing unrestricted access to a preparatory document relating to a meeting of the Regulatory Cooperation Forum (RCF) concerning the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the third indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) through misapplication of the law






  — | The assumption that international relations would be undermined within the meaning of this provision on the basis that disclosure of internal strategic considerations could jeopardise the successful outcome of the ongoing exchanges related to the implementation of the agreement is incorrect. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the third indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) through misapplication of the law

—

The assumption that international relations would be undermined within the meaning of this provision on the basis that disclosure of internal strategic considerations could jeopardise the successful outcome of the ongoing exchanges related to the implementation of the agreement is incorrect.

| — | The assumption that international relations would be undermined within the meaning of this provision on the basis that the information used could also be used by third countries against the EU is incorrect. |
| --- | --- |

—

The assumption that international relations would be undermined within the meaning of this provision on the basis that the information used could also be used by third countries against the EU is incorrect.

| — | The assumption that international relations would be undermined within the meaning of this provision on the basis that cooperation with Canada could otherwise be threatened is also incorrect. |
| --- | --- |

—

The assumption that international relations would be undermined within the meaning of this provision on the basis that cooperation with Canada could otherwise be threatened is also incorrect.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001, as a result of the incorrect decision to disclose only parts of the document at issue. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001, as a result of the incorrect decision to disclose only parts of the document at issue.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(7) of Regulation No 1049/2001, because no time limit was placed on the refusal of access. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(7) of Regulation No 1049/2001, because no time limit was placed on the refusal of access.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(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).

---