Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62019TN0569

Case T-569/19: Action brought on 15 August 2019 – AlzChem Group v Commission

OJ C 363, 28.10.2019, pp. 19–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

28.10.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/19

Action brought on 15 August 2019 – AlzChem Group v Commission

(Case T-569/19)

(2019/C 363/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AlzChem Group AG (Trostberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Borsos and J. Guerrero Pérez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

declare the application admissible and well founded;

—

annul the Decision C(2019)5602 of the Secretary General of the European Commission pursuant to Article 4 of the Implementing Rules to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), of 22 July 2019, in response to application No GESTDEM 2019/2311; and

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging error in law and manifest error of assessment regarding the application of certain exceptions to the general rule to grant access to documents, in light of the facts at issue:

—

the request does not concern any case-file or investigative document, and therefore does not concern or affect the purpose of investigations (Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001) or the Commission’s decision-making process (Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001);

—

the request should not be refused based on the protection of the purpose of investigations (Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation No (EC) 1049/2001) or the Commission’s decision making process (Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001);

—

the request does not concern any information or data of commercial interest that needs to be protected (Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001);

—

the contested decision applies exceptions for disclosure in a discriminatory fashion, as they are superseded by the Commission’s actions and conduct in other similar situations – this is prohibited by EU law;

—

the application of any exception for disclosure is superseded by an overriding public interest for disclosure in order to ensure an effective judicial review (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights).

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons regarding the refusal of access to a non-confidential version, partial access, or access to the documents from the Commission’s premises, pursuant to Articles 4(6) and 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

(1)  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 (OJ 2001, L 145, p. 43)

Top