CELEX: 62021TN0661
Language: en
Date: 2021-10-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-661/21: Action brought on 7 October 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission

17.1.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 24/44
            
         
      Action brought on 7 October 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission
      (Case T-661/21)
      (2022/C 24/57)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer, B. Verheijen and T. van Helfteren, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Commission
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the implied decision of the defendant to refuse access to certain documents related to deforestation and forest degradation, 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 (1) and to 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; (2)
                  
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the European Commission to pay the applicant's costs for conducting this proceeding including the costs of any intervening parties.
               
            
         Plea in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, according to which, as a result of the failure to address the applicant with an express decision regarding its request for access within the time-limits for processing of confirmatory applications contained in Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, the defendant impliedly refused access within the meaning of Article 8(3) thereof.
      
         (1)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
      
         (2)  OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13.