Action brought on 26 April 2024 – Smart Kid v Commission
(Case T-227/24)
Language of the case: Polish
Parties
Applicant: Smart Kid S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: Z. Kiedacz, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
annul European Commission Decision C(2024)1118 of 15 February 2024, adopted in the case examined by the European Commission under reference EASE 2023/2923, partially refusing access to the public documents requested by Smart Kid on 17 May 2023;
order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1. First plea in law, alleging infringement by the European Commission of Article 15(3) TFEU, read in conjunction with Articles 1, 2 and the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. 1
The applicant submits that Article 15(3) TFEU, in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council provide for the right of any legal person having its registered office in a Member State to have access to documents of EU bodies, in accordance with the general principles and limits governing the exercise of that right, set out in Regulation No 1049/2001. The European Commission infringes that right, in so far as it applies in an unjustified and incorrect manner the exception laid down in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, that is to say by wrongly relying on the commercial interest of the authors of the documents.
2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement by the European Commission of the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296(2) TFEU.
The applicant submits that, as follows from Article 296(2) TFEU, legal acts adopted by the EU institutions must state the reasons on which they are based. The statement of reasons must be appropriate to the act at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the act in question. The statement of reasons in the contested decision significantly hampers the applicant’s ability to analyse the legitimacy of the actions taken by the European Commission.
____________
1 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).