Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
CEE Bankwatch Network v European Commission (T-307/16)
Regulation No 1049/2001
The fourth plea in law, alleging infri…
124

CEE Bankwatch Network v European Commission (T-307/16)

Judgment of 27 Feb 2018law://eu/cjeu/2016/t-307-16/para_124@2026-11-11

124However, it follows from Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001 that the possible existence of an overriding public interest does not need to be examined when the exception concerning the protection of the public interest as regards international relations is invoked.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: General Court · First Chamber
Case: T-307/16 · ECLI:EU:T:2018:97
Decided: 27 Feb 2018
Procedure: Action for annulment
Applicant: CEE Bankwatch Network
Defendant: European Commission
Rapporteur: P. Nihoul
Bench: 3 judges
I. Pelikánová, P. Nihoul, J. Svenningsen
Language: English
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62016TJ0307

Topics

Access to documents

History · 1 version

27 Feb 2018Reading

Connections

Cited by 10: Smart Kid S.A. v European Commission (T-337/24); ABLV Bank AS v European Central Bank (T-100/23); Smart Kid S.A. v European Commission (T-227/24); Margrete Auken and Others v European Commission (T-689/21); Fabien Courtois and Others v European Commission (T-761/21); Marie Naass and Sea-Watch eV v European Border and Coast Guard Agency (T-205/22); Foodwatch eV v European Commission (T-643/21); Hans-Wilhelm Saure v European Commission (T-651/21); Marco Bronckers v European Commission (T-166/19)2 provisions; Falcon Technologies International LLC v European Commission (T-875/16)
Cites 16: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)7 provisions; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions; Treaty on European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions; 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; 2005/370/EC: Council Decision of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters; AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca plc v European Commission (T-321/05); Ivan Jurašinović v Council of the European Union (T-658/14); Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions 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; Kingdom of Sweden and Maurizio Turco v Council of the European Union (C-39/05); Jose Maria Sison v Council of the European Union (C-266/05 P); Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN) and Republic of Finland v European Commission (C-514/11 P, C-605/11 P); Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission (T-210/15); Kingdom of Sweden v European Commission and MyTravel Group plc (C-506/08 P); Deza, a.s. v European Chemicals Agency (T-189/14); Udo Voigt v European Parliament (T-618/15); Rhiannon Williams v Commission of the European Communities (T-42/05)