# C_2022084EN.01005301.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/53

---

Action brought on 8 January 2022 — Tóth v Commission

(Case T-17/22)

(2022/C 84/74)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Bertalan Tóth (Pécs, Hungary) (represented by: Á. Baratta and B. Czudar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to refuse access to the document entitled ‘Final Report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) OF/2015/0034/B4 relating to public lighting activities by Élios Innovatív Zrt.’ by not giving a decision, within the time limit laid down in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, (1) on the confirmatory application for access submitted by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to refuse access to the document entitled ‘Final Report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) OF/2015/0034/B4 relating to public lighting activities by Élios Innovatív Zrt.’ by not giving a decision, within the time limit laid down in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, (1) on the confirmatory application for access submitted by the applicant.

| — | order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons.






  — | OLAF failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons by refusing, without providing justification in accordance with the law, access to the document entitled ‘Final Report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) OF/2015/0034/B4 relating to public lighting activities by Élios Innovatív Zrt.’. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

—

OLAF failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons by refusing, without providing justification in accordance with the law, access to the document entitled ‘Final Report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) OF/2015/0034/B4 relating to public lighting activities by Élios Innovatív Zrt.’.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the refusal to grant the request for access is unlawful.






  — | OLAF refused to grant the request for access without satisfying any of the exceptions provided for in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 that would justify the refusal of the requests for access. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the refusal to grant the request for access is unlawful.

—

OLAF refused to grant the request for access without satisfying any of the exceptions provided for in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 that would justify the refusal of the requests for access.

---

(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).

---