Notices for publication in the OJ nº T-475/17 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, September 08, 2017

• Resolution Date: September 08, 2017
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-475/17

Action brought on 2 August 2017 - Rogesa v Commission

(Case T-475/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and A. Sitzer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the Commission’s decision of 20 June 2017 or, in the alternative, the Commission’s decision of 11 July 2017 refusing the applicant’s confirmatory application of 29 May 2017 (Reference GestDem No 2017/1788); and

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant invokes three pleas in law:

First plea in law: the conditions governing entitlement to access to the documents were satisfied

The applicant submits that the contested decision infringes the first paragraph of Article 3 of Regulation No 1367/2006, ¹ in conjunction with Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, ² since it is entitled to have access to the documents which it requested.

Second plea in law: there are no grounds for refusal under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

The applicant submits that the requested documents do not contain commercially sensitive data within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and that there is, in any event, an overriding public interest justifying disclosure of the documents.

The applicant further submits that the ground for refusal pursuant to the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, under which access to a document may be refused where its disclosure would undermine the protection of court proceedings and of legal advice, also does not obtain since Case C-80/16 (ArcelorMittal Atlantique and Lorraine) pending before the Court of Justice was practically concluded by the judgment of 26 July 2017.

The applicant also claims that the Commission was, in any event, obliged to grant partial access, if necessary by redacting confidential data. The Commission’s decision therefore also infringes Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TEU.

Third plea in law: the Commission committed a procedural error

Lastly, the applicant submits that Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has been infringed. Despite two extensions of the time limit, most recently for an indefinite period, no decision had been taken...