Information;Order — ECLI:EU:T:2025:412
Date: 2025-04-14
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions;Access to documents
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible;Action for annulment
Origin: Germany

Action brought on 10 July 2024 – Molitorisová v Commission (Case T-353/24) Language of the case: English Parties Applicant: Alexandra Molitorisová (Kulmbach, Germany) (represented by: K. Purnhagen, professor) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the implied decision of the defendant of 16 November 2020 to refuse access to certain requested documents related to food additives and food enzymes pursuant to Commission Regulation (EU) No 234/2011; 1 order the defendant to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s right to access documents within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council 1 was violated as a result of the defendant’s refusal or failure to provide the documents on the basis of a request to access documents No 2024/1651 lodged on 25 March 2024 (‘the request’) within the prescribed time limit. The defendant’s fair solution proposal was based on a manifestly erred assessment in law and facts, namely that the provision of public and non-confidential documents would result in an excessive administrative burden on the part of the defendant, as the request concerned public summaries, which are defined by the law as non-confidential. Therefore, contrary to the defendant’s assessment, no exception under Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 is applicable to the disclosure of public non-confidential information per Commission Regulation No 234/2011. Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s confirmatory application, filed on 8 May 2024, is to be viewed as registered within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and the defendant failed to address to the applicant an express decision regarding the request within the time limits for processing of confirmatory applications contained in Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, by which the defendant impliedly refused access within the meaning of Article 8(3) thereof. The applicant submits that this implied refusal decision too violates the applicant’s right to access documents. Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s right to good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) was violated. According to Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter, the right to good administration includes the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy. The fact that the applicant lost access to her file concerning the request via the defendant’s dedicated portal, notified the defendant about her lack of access and did not get access to her file until this day signifies a clear violation of Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter, more so if the access was denied in a time critical frame, i.e. to exercise the applicant’s procedural rights under Regulation No 1049/2001. ____________ 1 Commission Regulation (EU) No 234/2011 of 10 March 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings (OJ 2011 L 64, p. 15). 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).