EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-423/17: Action brought on 11 July 2017 — Nexans France and Nexans v. Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0423

62017TN0423

July 11, 2017
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/31

(Case T-423/17)

(2017/C 300/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Nexans France (Courbevoie, France) and Nexans (Courbevoie) (represented by: M. Powell and A. Rogers, Solicitors, and G. Forwood, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul Commission Decision C(2017) 3051 final of 2 May 2017 on a request for confidential treatment submitted by Nexans France and Nexans 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 (Case AT.39610 — Power Cables) in so far as it rejects the Applicants’ confidentiality claims as regards the material that they claim in Case T-449/14 was obtained illegally (so-called ‘Category I Claims’), and

order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state sufficient reasons, contrary to Article 296 TFEU, Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as Article 8(2) of Decision 2011/695/EU.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in assessing the applicants’ claim under Article 8(2) of Decision 2011/695: firstly, in finding that some of the contested material was already known beyond a limited number of persons; secondly, in failing to take due account of the principle of effective judicial protection; and thirdly, in finding that the applicants’ interests are not worthy of protection

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of the presumption of innocence, in view of the fact that the legality of the method by which the contested material was obtained is contested in the pending action Case T-449/14. Publication of the contested material would deprive any annulment in that case of its full effect.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia