Order — ECLI:EU:C:2026:375
Date: 2026-04-30
Language of the case: English

summary cannot be regarded as a second limb of the first plea. 16. In that regard, first, I note that that ground of appeal is based on a manifestly incorrect reading of paragraph 5 of the order under appeal, since the appellants seem to confuse the concept of “plea” with that of “head of claim”, the latter having been expressly referred to by the General Court in that paragraph. The General Court noted, in that paragraph, that “in the second part of the first head of claim, the applicants ask the Court to grant them access to the documents in question”, wording which the appellants do not dispute having used in paragraph 90 of their application at first instance, under the heading “Conclusions”. 17. Second, I would point out that, as regards the content of the application, Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court distinguishes, in two different points, the pleas in law (Article 76(d) of those rules of procedure) and the form of order sought by the applicant (Article 76(e) of those rules of procedure). It was in accordance with Article 76(e) of the Rules of Procedure that the appellants, in paragraph 90 of the application at first instance, entitled “Conclusions”, requested the General Court, first, to annul the decision at issue and to grant them access to the documents concerned and, second, to order the Commission to pay the costs. 18. It follows that the General Court was entitled to find, without erring in law or distorting the first head of claim of the action at first instance, that that head of claim sought, inter alia, that access to the documents concerned be granted to the appellants, as stated in paragraph 5 of the order under appeal. 19. I therefore propose that the first ground of appeal should also be rejected as manifestly unfounded. Conclusion 20. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court of Justice dismiss the appeal in its entirety, on the basis of an order adopted pursuant to Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and order the appellants to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 137 and Article 184(1) of those rules of procedure.’ 5 For the same reasons as those given by the Advocate General, the appeal must be dismissed, in its entirety, as manifestly unfounded. Costs 6 Under Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, applicable to proceedings on appeal pursuant to Article 184(1) of those rules of procedure, a decision as to costs is to be given in the order which closes the proceedings. 7 In the present case, since the present order was adopted before the appeal was served on the other party to the proceedings and, therefore, before that party could have incurred costs, it is appropriate to decide that APEDA and Mr O’Connor are to bear their own costs. On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby orders: 1. The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. 2. Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) and Mr Bernard O’Connor shall bear their own costs. Luxembourg, 30 April 2026. A. Calot Escobar O. Spineanu-Matei Registrar President of the Chamber * Language of the case: English.