BonSens.org v Stevi and Others (Appeal - Intervention - Access to documents - Interest in the result of the case - Order) [2024] EUECJ C-634/23P(I)_CO (11 January 2024)

BonSens.org v Stevi and Others (Appeal - Intervention - Access to documents - Interest in the result of the case - Order) [2024] EUECJ C-634/23P(I)_CO (11 January 2024)

BonSens.org did not demonstrate a direct and existing interest in the result of Case T-36/23 as required for intervention under Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The General Court's reasoning was adequate, there was no procedural unfairness or discrimination, and the right to access documents under Article 42 of the Charter was not infringed by the refusal to allow intervention.

Parties
Appellant: BonSens.org; Applicant at First Instance: Matina Stevi; Applicant at First Instance: The New York Times Company; Defendant at First Instance: European Commission
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
11 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Order on Application to Intervene
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Access to Documents, Intervention in Proceedings, Interest in Result of Case, Transparency, Annulment Action
European Union Law Administrative Law Access to Documents Intervention in Proceedings Interest in Result of Case Transparency Annulment Action

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BonSens.org

Appellant

Matina Stevi

Applicant at First Instance

The New York Times Company

Applicant at First Instance

European Commission

Defendant at First Instance

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Order on Application to Intervene

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether BonSens.org has a direct interest in the result of Case T-36/23 sufficient to justify intervention
  2. 2 Whether the General Court's reasoning was adequate
  3. 3 Whether BonSens.org's rights under Articles 42 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union were infringed

Ratio Decidendi

BonSens.org did not demonstrate a direct and existing interest in the result of Case T-36/23 as required for intervention under Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The General Court's reasoning was adequate, there was no procedural unfairness or discrimination, and the right to access documents under Article 42 of the Charter was not infringed by the refusal to allow intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • BonSens.org shall bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings and pay those incurred by the European Commission.