Case T-618/25: Action brought on 11 September 2025 – Les Patriotes v Commission
Date: 2025-09-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commissioner, President of the Commission, access to EU information, powers of the institutions (EU), right to an effective remedy, rules of procedure, sanction (EU)








C_202506300EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6300


1.12.2025






Action brought on 11 September 2025 – Les Patriotes v Commission


(Case T-618/25)

(C/2025/6300)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Les Patriotes (Paris, France) (represented by: D. Guyon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision (EU) 2024/3080 of 4 December 2024; (1)











—


annul the decision of 3 July 2025;










—


order the European Commission to:






—


amend its internal rules so as to bring them into conformity with Article 15 TFEU, Regulation No 1049/2001, (2) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;










—


adopt new Rules of Procedure guaranteeing the case-by-case examination of requests for access, with a specific statement of reasons and an effective judicial remedy;










—


publish the amended decision in the Official Journal of the European Union;










—


impose a financial penalty of EUR 500 per day of delay as of the notification of the judgment to be given;










—


order the European Commission to pay the amount of EUR 3 000 in respect of the non-recoverable costs incurred by the applicant.









Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging lack of competence on the part of the author of the act










—


The applicant claims that the regulatory acts of the Commission fall within the scope of the collegiate powers of the College of Commissioners as a whole (Article 17(6) TEU and Article 5 of the Rules of Procedure). The applicant argues that the decision of 4 December 2024 does not refer to the adoption thereof by the President of the Commission. The decision of 3 July 2025 was signed by My Pascal Leardini, without proof of a delegation of powers or of signature. The applicant maintains that the decisions should be declared void on grounds of lack of competence.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging absence of signatures on the decision of 4 December 2024










—


The applicant states that Article 297 TFEU requires that acts adopted by the institutions are to be signed by the competent authority. Signature is a substantive requirement affecting the validity and authenticity of the act. The applicant claims, in that regard, that the decision of 4 December 2024 has not been signed, which deprives it of any binding force.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging disregard for Article 15 TFEU










—


The applicant claims that Article 15 TFEU enshrines the fundamental right to access to documents. The Commission has established a general presumption of non-disclosure, which inverts the principle of transparency. That presumption deprives citizens of a concrete and individualised examination of requests, in breach of the judgment of 18 December 2007, Sweden v Commission (C-64/05 P, EU:C:2007:802).










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging disregard for Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001










—


The applicant claims that Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 lays down limited exceptions, which are to be interpreted strictly and reasoned on a case-by-case basis. The Commission generalises those exceptions by creating an automatic confidentiality rule. The applicant claims that the Commission has removed the obligation to carry out a concrete examination and the possibility of rebutting the presumption by way of an overriding public interest.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’)










—


The applicant states that the right to an effective remedy entails access to the documents needed to challenge a decision effectively. Generalised non-disclosure prevents applicants from preparing their actions, infringes the principle of equality of arms, and renders Article 47 of the Charter meaningless.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter










—


The applicant claims that the right to sound administration requires the fair, impartial and reasons treatment of each request. The general presumption of refusal of access removes the requirement of an individual examination and a detailed statement of reasons. In the applicant’s view, this constitutes administrative opacity which is contrary to Article 41 of the Charter.






(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2024/3080 of 4 December 2024 establishing the Rules of Procedure of the Commission and amending Decision C(2000) 3614 (OJ, L 2024/3080).

(2)  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).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6300/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)