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
(2018/C 022/64)
Language of the case: English
Applicant: ViaSat, Inc. (Carlsbad, California, United States) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, L. Marco Perpiñà, and S. Semey, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the Commission’s implied negative decision of 24 August 2017, resulting from the failure by the European Commission, under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, to reply within the prescribed time-limit to the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents of 10 July 2017 in relation to the access to documents request registered on 2 May 2017 under No 2017/2592, insofar as concerns information produced or exchanged in the context of a call for applications for pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services;
—order the Commission to pay the costs, including those of any intervening parties.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached its duty to state reasons under Article 296(2) TFEU.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to perform a concrete and individual examination of the requested documents.