Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2024/6103

21.10.2024

(Case T-433/24)

(C/2024/6103)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edward William Batchelor (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Osepciu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision of the Commission C(2024) 3818 final adopted on 2 June 2024, rejecting the confirmatory application for access to documents pursuant to Article 4 of the Implementing Rules to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) in the Case EASE 2023/6991 ;

—order the Commission to pay its own costs and the applicant’s costs in connection with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes Article 4(2), third indent, Regulation 1049/2001 on the exception for the protection of the purpose of investigations. The EC erred in determining that designation as a gatekeeper based on the presumption in Article 3(2) of the DMA (2) constitutes an ‘investigation’ and misapplied the legal test for this exception to apply. The EC erroneously concluded that a general presumption of non-disclosure applied in respect of designation under Article 3 DMA.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes Article 4(2), second indent, Regulation 1049/2001 on the exception for the protection of court proceedings. The decision does not show (i) any connection between the requested documents and legal positions taken by the EC in litigation; or (ii) any concrete and specific harm to the protection of the integrity of court proceedings.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes Article 4(2) Regulation 1049/2001 in finding there was no overriding public interest in disclosure. There is an overriding public interest in transparency and accountability of the EC’s policy and decision-making in relation to the DMA.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes Article 4(6) Regulation 1049/2001 in failing to assess whether partial disclosure could be granted.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the EC breached its duty to state reasons.

—

(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 L 145, p. 43.

(2) Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act) (OJ 2022, L 265, p. 1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6103/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—