#62025CO0516EU Court dismisses APEDA appeal over late challenge to document access refusal
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. See the original source for the authoritative text.
This order dismisses APEDA and Bernard O'Connor's appeal in a dispute over access to European Commission documents linked to a protected geographical indication application. The Court found the appeal clearly unfounded because their original challenge was filed after the legal deadline. The practical point is procedural: parties challenging EU decisions must calculate filing deadlines strictly. Missing the deadline by a few days can end the case before the court examines the underlying access-to-documents dispute.
AI-generated summary. May contain errors. Refer to official sources for legal decisions.
Key Changes
- Dismisses the appeal brought by APEDA and Bernard O'Connor as manifestly unfounded
- Confirms that the original action against the Commission's document access decision was filed too late
- Reinforces strict calculation of EU court filing deadlines, including the 10-day distance extension
Obligations
What this law requires
An action for annulment of an EU act under Article 263 TFEU must be brought within two months of publication, notification to the applicant, or the date on which the applicant became aware of the act, as applicable.
For procedural deadlines expressed in months under the General Court Rules of Procedure, the day of notification is not counted; the deadline ends on the day in the final month bearing the same date as the notification day, before adding the 10-day distance period.
In this case, the Commission decision was notified on 14 November 2024, so the time limit for bringing the annulment action expired on Friday 24 January 2025 at midnight after adding the 10-day distance period.
The Court of Justice concluded that the application lodged on 27 January 2025 was out of time and that the appeal against the General Court’s inadmissibility finding was manifestly unfounded.
A request asking the General Court to grant access to documents can be treated as a head of claim seeking the Court itself to order access, distinct from a plea in law challenging the Commission decision.