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 C-666/17 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2017 by AlzChem AG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2017 in Case T-451/15: AlzChem AG v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CN0666

62017CN0666

November 27, 2017
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

26.3.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/8

(Case C-666/17 P)

(2018/C 112/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: AlzChem AG (represented by: A. Borsos, avocat, J. A. Guerrero Pérez, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

declare the application admissible and well founded;

annul the judgment;

annul the contested decision; and

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1)First Plea: Error in law and manifest error of assessment regarding the application of a general presumption in relation to the exception for the protection of the purpose of EU investigations

The Commission’s error in law regarding the application of the general presumptions in relation to the application of exception to requests for access to specific and identified pre-existing documents;

The Commission’s error in law regarding the protection of the purpose of ongoing investigations in relation to requests for access to specific and identified pre-existing documents;

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); 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).

2)Second Plea: Failure to state reasons regarding the refusal of access to a non-confidential version of an on-site access to the documents.

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