Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2024:805
Date: 2024-11-13
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions;Access to documents
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Latvia

Action brought on 27 February 2023 – Kargins v Commission (Case T-110/23) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: Rems Kargins (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the Commission’s decision dated 12 December 2022 and received on 16 December 2022 with respect to the applicant by which the Commission rejected the applicant’s request for access to documents pursuant to the rules governing public access to documents; order the defendant to bear the costs of the applicant. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging that the list of documents provided by the defendant in the contested decision is manifestly incomplete. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant illegitimately redacted significant parts of the documents. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant illegally denied access to fourteen documents and that it did so on the basis of an incorrect interpretation and application of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 1 with respect to the potential undermining of court proceedings. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s position as to a potential overriding public interest is vitiated by a number of defects including, inter alia, that the defendant did not refer to any harm in disclosure, that it did not consider the political and economic significance of the present case, and it did not consider the public interest in being able to assess the difference between a legitimate amicus curiae letter and an illegitimate interference by the Commission with the administration of justice in a Member State, by pointing out to the national court in charge of hearing an appeal adverse consequences for the Member State concerned as a result of adverse action taken by the Commission if the decision of the lower courts is not overturned. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to grant the applicant access to the file. Sixth plea in law, alleging that, by issuing the contested decision to the applicant almost one year after the confirmatory application was sent, the deadline pursuant to Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation 1049/2001 was violated in such an egregious manner as to constitute a denial of access at the relevant time. ____________ 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.