11.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/47

(Case T-134/20)

(2020/C 161/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Huhtamaki Sàrl (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Struys and F. Pili, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2019, pursuant to Article 4 of the Implementing rules to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (1) which rejected the applicant’s confirmatory application of 13 November 2019 for access to documents under that regulation;

—order the European Commission to grant access to the applicant to the non-confidential versions of the document listing the beneficiaries of tax rulings submitted by Luxembourg on 22 December 2014 in response to the Commission’s letter of 19 June 2013, which is referred to in paragraph 4 of the Commission decision of 7 March 2019 opening a formal State aid investigation in case State Aid SA.50400 (2019/NN-2) — Luxembourg — Possible State aid, and the tax rulings issued by the tax administration of Luxembourg referred to by the European Commission at paragraphs 4 and 7 of the said Commission decision of 7 March 2019;

—order the Commission to pay the 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 erred in law in considering that the general presumption of non-disclosure established by the case law is applicable with respect to the applicant’s request for access to the requested documents.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that, assuming that the presumption of non-disclosure would be applicable in the present case (quod non), the absence of any possible harm for the interests protected by Article 4(2), first and third indent, of Regulation 1049/2001, would rebut the application of that presumption (first limb of the second plea). In addition, the applicant claims that the application of this presumption would, in any event, be reversed, since there are overriding reasons of public interest justifying disclosure of the requested documents (second limb of the second plea).

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the requirements to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU and the applicant’s right to good administration provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(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).