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-762/16: Action brought on 31 October 2016 — ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v ECHA

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0762

62016TN0762

October 31, 2016
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

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/41

(Case T-762/16)

(2017/C 014/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg) and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Scheidmann and M. Kottmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul the ECHA’s decision of 26 September 2016 (reference ATD/52/2016);

alternatively, annul the ECHA's decision of 19 August 2016 (reference ATD/52/2016) to the extent that it rejects the applicants’ request for access to their file;

order the ECHA to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

The applicants claim that the contested decision misapplies the abovementioned provision by erroneously finding that commercial interests would be undermined by disclosure and they further argue that the decision disregards overriding public interests.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(2), second indent, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

The applicants assert that the contested decision violates the abovementioned provision and that, contrary to that decision, the documents to which access is requested do pertain to the applicants’ file and are not, therefore, excluded from the scope of that provision.

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