- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-451/15: Action brought on 5 August 2015 — AlzChem v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0451
62015TN0451
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
28.9.2015
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 320/45
(Case T-451/15)
(2015/C 320/63)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: AlzChem AG (Trostberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Borsos, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—declare the application admissible and well founded;
—annul the decision Ares (2015) 2176662 of the European Commission of 26 May 2015, taken pursuant to Article 4 of the Implementing Rules to 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, in response to application No GESTDEM 2015/1640; 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 three pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging an error in law and a manifest error of assessment regarding the application of a general presumption in reaction to the exception for the protection of the purpose of EU investigations. The applicant puts forward the following errors:
—the Commission’s error in law regarding the application of the general exceptions;
—the Commission’s error in law regarding the protection of the purpose of investigations;
—the Commission’s error in law and manifest error of assessment regarding the assessment of the overriding public interest of ensuring an effective judicial review (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union); and
—the Commission’s error in law regarding the application of the fundamental right of access to documents (Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).
Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and a manifest error of assessment regarding the application of the exception for the protection of commercial interests.
Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons regarding the refusal of access to a non-confidential version or an on-site access to the documents.