EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62016TA0644

Case T-644/16: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — ClientEarth v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Commission documents relating to the compatibility with EU law of Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Investment Court System in EU trade agreements — Partial refusal of access — Exception concerning the protection of the public interest as regards international relations — Exception concerning the protection of legal advice — Exception concerning the protection of the decision-making process — Overriding public interest)

OJ C 301, 27.8.2018, p. 27–27 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

27.8.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/27


Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-644/16) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Commission documents relating to the compatibility with EU law of Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Investment Court System in EU trade agreements - Partial refusal of access - Exception concerning the protection of the public interest as regards international relations - Exception concerning the protection of legal advice - Exception concerning the protection of the decision-making process - Overriding public interest))

(2018/C 301/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer, and N. Frey, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 4286 final of 1 July 2016, refusing access to certain documents relating to the compatibility with EU law of Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the Investment Court System in EU trade agreements.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders ClientEarth to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.


(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.


Top