(Access to documents— Regulation (EC) No1049/2001— Request for access to the observations of the Commission and a detailed opinion of a Member State in the context of a notification procedure under Directive (EU) 2015/1535

12Under Article130(2) and (7) of its Rules of Procedure, if a party so requests, the General Court may declare that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it.

13Since, in the present case, the Commission has requested a declaration that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it, the General Court, considering that it has sufficient evidence available to it in the case file, has decided to adjudicate on the Commission’s application without taking further steps in the proceedings.

14According to settled case-law, the subject matter of the dispute must continue, like the interest in bringing proceedings, until the final decision, failing which there will be no need to adjudicate, which presupposes that the action must be liable, if successful, to procure an advantage on the party bringing it (judgments of 7June 2007, Wunenburger v Commission, C‑362/05P, EU:C:2007:322, paragraph42, and 9September 2011, LPN v Commission, T‑29/08, EU:T:2011:448, paragraph56; see, also, order of 5July 2017, EEB v Commission, T‑38/16, not published, EU:T:2017:523, paragraphs33 and the case-law cited).

15In the present case, it must be recalled that the action is brought against the contested decision, by which the Commission refused the applicant access to the two requested documents. Subsequent to the lodging of the application, without formally withdrawing the contested decision, the Commission adopted a new decision, by which it granted the applicant access to those documents, which satisfied its claim in full. It must be observed that the applicant obtained the only advantage its action could provide. The annulment of the contested decision, in so far as it refused the applicant access to those documents, would not have any additional effects in relation to the disclosure of that document in its entirety (see, to that effect, order of 14January 2014, Miettinen v Council, T‑303/13, not published, EU:T:2014:48, paragraph19).

16In those circumstances, it must be held, as the parties agree, that the present action has become devoid of purpose and, therefore, there is thus no longer any need to adjudicate (see, to that effect, judgment of 9September 2011, LPN v Commission, T‑29/08, EU:T:2011:448, paragraph57, and order of 15January 2018, ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v ECHA, T‑762/16, not published, EU:T:2018:12, paragraph17).

17It follows from the foregoing that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action or, therefore, on the request for leave to intervene by the Republic of Poland.