do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-249/23 P: Appeal brought on 18 April 2023 by ClientEarth AISBL against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 01 February 2023 in Case T-354/21, ClientEarth v Commission
Date: 2023-04-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Denmark, France, access to EU information, common fisheries policy, confidentiality, disclosure of information, fishing controls








C_2023235EN.01002002.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/20






Appeal brought on 18 April 2023 by ClientEarth AISBL against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 01 February 2023 in Case T-354/21, ClientEarth v Commission
(Case C-249/23 P)
(2023/C 235/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: ClientEarth AISBL (represented by: O. W. Brouwer, and T. C. van Helfteren, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


render final judgment and annul the Commission Decision C(2021) 4348 final of 7 April 2021 refusing access to certain documents requested pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, or alternatively










—


refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court, including the costs relating to any intervening parties.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.
First plea: the judgment of the General Court is vitiated by contradictory reasoning, a denaturation of evidence, and an error of law in the application of the legal standard for assessing if there is an overriding public interest that can justify disclosure within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001.
Second plea: the judgment of the General Court is vitiated by insufficient reasoning as regards the rejection of the existence of an overriding public interest.


(1)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.