CELEX: 62013TN0056
Language: en
Date: 2013-01-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-56/13: Action brought on 30 January 2013 — ClientEarth and Stichting BirdLife Europe v Commission

6.4.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 101/23
            
         Action brought on 30 January 2013 — ClientEarth and Stichting BirdLife Europe v Commission
   (Case T-56/13)
   2013/C 101/50
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom); and Stichting BirdLife Europe (Zeist, Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer)
   
      Defendants: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the defendant’s refusal of their request for access to the latest draft of a literature review, on the so-called ‘carbon-debt’ of bioenergy derived from biomass, pursuant to 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, and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 on the application of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community Institutions and Bodies; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay applicants’ costs for conducting these proceedings including the costs of any intervening parties.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law.
   The applicants contend that as a result of its failure to address them with an express decision regarding their request for access within the time-limits for the processing of confirmatory applications contained in Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the defendant impliedly refused access within the meaning of Article 8(3). Further, the applicants state that this implied refusal decision was unmotivated and therefore they submit that it should be annulled for the reason of the Commission’s breach of its obligation to state reasons under Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, Article 41(2), 3rd indent of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 296 TFEU.