Notices for publication in the OJ nº T-79/19 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, March 22, 2019

• Resolution Date: March 22, 2019
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-79/19

Action brought on 12 February 2019 - Lantmännen and Lantmännen Agroetanol/Commission

(Case T-79/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Lantmännen ek för (Stockholm, Sweden), Lantmännen Agroetanol AB (Norrköping, Sweden) (represented by: S. Perván Lindeborg, A. Johansson, lawyers, and R. Bachour, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2019) 743 final of 28 January 2019 on an objection to disclosure submitted by applicants pursuant to Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ 2011 L 275, p. 29) (Case AT.40054 - Ethanol Benchmarks); and

order the defendant to pay costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the rules of law governing the settlement procedure

The applicants submit that the legal instruments which govern the settlement procedure should prevent disclosure of the concerned documents. In particular, Articles 10a, 15(1)b and 16a(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004, ¹ read together, should be interpreted as limiting disclosure of records from settlement discussions to the settlement submission itself, which may only be accessed under strict conditions.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

The applicants submit that the defendant, through its consistent practice of excluding non-papers submitted in the context of settlement discussions from other parties’ access to the file, and through specific assurances to this effect in the context of the settlement discussions, would have made the applicants to entertain justified expectations with regard to the confidential treatment of the documents at issue.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the principles of equal treatment and equality of arms.

The applicants submit that by disclosing the records of the applicants’ settlement discussions with the defendant to other parties, the defendant would have infringed the principle of equal treatment, by placing settling parties in a worse position than parties that have abandoned settlement...