Case T-214/21: Action brought on 19 April 2021 — Múka v Commission
Date: 2021-04-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Czechia, access to EU information, electrical energy, energy production, investment aid, renewable energy








C_2021242EN.01005001.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/50






Action brought on 19 April 2021 — Múka v Commission
(Case T-214/21)
(2021/C 242/71)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ondřej Múka (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Kočí, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the European Commission’s decision No C(2021) 1320 final of 21 February 2021 and decision No COMP/B2/JP *Gestdem 2020/5901 of 27 October 2020, refusing access to documents required by the applicant based on the request dated 17 September 2020 and the confirmatory application dated 12 November 2020, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;










—


order the European Commission to provide the applicant with all information and documents required under the request dated 17 September 2020 within 30 days since legal force of the judgment; and










—


order the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant within 30 days since legal force of the judgment.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the exception based on Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) cannot be applied as both notification procedures based on which the European Commission issued the notification decisions were already terminated.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission omitted to carry out a concrete, individual examination of the documents at issue and to provide specific reasons how the disclosure of documents at issue could specifically and actually undermine the interest protected by Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission breached the rules and purpose of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to give the fullest possible effect to the right of public access to documents. The European Commission has not ensured the easiest and widest possible exercise of the right of public access to documents despite the explicit requirements set out in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Thus, the European Commission violated recital 4 and recital 11 and Article 1(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission omitted to comply with the obligation to provide at least partial access to the requested documents, by refusing access to all of the requested documents, without providing necessary reasoning in this respect. Thus, the European Commission violated Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the risk of threatening the European Commission’s investigation strategies is non-existent. The subject matter of the applicant’s request for information was access to documents related to the adequacy of support for electricity produced by renewable sources in the Czech Republic and calculations of the values of the internal rate of return on investments and other specifically determined documents, and not information regarding the decision-making process of the European Commission or its specific investigative strategies, preliminary assessments of the cases or planning of procedural steps.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that Regulation (EU) No 1589/2015 (2) does not prohibit the provision of the requested documents required under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Thus, the European Commission was obliged to proceed with the request and the confirmatory application, in compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the European Commission’s requirement imposed on the applicant to demonstrate an overriding public interest in disclosure of requested documents is contrary to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and its principles. Moreover, in the present case, the existing overriding public interest (in disclosure of the requested documents) lies in the control of legislative procedure and management of public funds. Such interest outweighs any exceptions presented by the European Commission and relies heavily on the documents requested by the applicant.






(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).

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).