- 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-330/11: Action brought on 15 June 2011 — MasterCard and Others v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0330
62011TN0330
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
13.8.2011
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 238/34
(Case T-330/11)
2011/C 238/59
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: MasterCard, Inc. (Wilmington, United States), MasterCard International, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) and MasterCard Europe SPRL (Waterloo, Belgium) (represented by: B. Amory, V. Brophy and S. McInnes, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
—Declare the application admissible;
—Annul, in its entirety, the Commission’s negative decision based on the exception in Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of 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);
—Declare the Commission’s interpretation of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to be unfounded in law; and
—Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the applicants.
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 that the Commission breached Articles 4(3) and 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as:
—The Commission has not established that the conditions of Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are fulfilled;
—The elements relied on by the Commission are factually inaccurate; and
—There is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents provided by EIM Business and Policy Research in the framework of the study on ‘Costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods’ (COMP/2009/D1/020)
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law by breaching Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as well as Article 2 of the Annex to the Commission’s Decision amending its Rules of Procedure (OJ 2010 L 55, p. 60), as:
—The Commission illegally reinitiated the timing for review; and
—The Commission illegally extended the timing for review by 15 working days.