CELEX: 62016TN0074
Language: en
Date: 2016-02-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-74/16: Action brought on 17 February 2016 — POA/Commission

25.4.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 145/31
            
         Action brought on 17 February 2016 — POA/Commission
   (Case T-74/16)
   (2016/C 145/38)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Pagkyprios organismos ageladotrofon (POA) Dimosia Ltd (Latsia, Cyprus) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision Ares(2015)5632670, of 7 December 2015, of the Secretariat General, rejecting the confirmatory application submitted by the applicant by its letter dated 15 September 2015, in which the applicant, pursuant to (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), requested access to documents concerning the application of a Cypriot producer's organization for the registration of the denomination ‘Halloumi’ under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1), and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the legal fees of the applicant.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on fourth pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission, relying on Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation No 1049/2001, has failed to give proper explanations why a decision-making process could be seriously undermined by the disclosure of the non-disclosed parts.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging an error in law as the reasons provided by the Republic of Cyprus to refuse disclosure on the basis of Article 4(2), second indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001 are inadequate.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the right to an effective remedy and the principle of transparency as the refusal of the Republic of Cyprus to disclose some of the documents at stake implies that the applicant is not in the position to understand the subject-matter of each non disclosed document.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in law as a Member state cannot use article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation No 1049/2001 to refuse the disclosure of documents if the decision which could be undermined is that of an institution of the European Union.