(Case C-440/18 P)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Verein Deutsche Sprache e.V. (represented by: W. Ehrhardt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2018 in Case T-468/16 and annul the decision of the Secretary-General, on behalf of the Commission, pursuant to Article 4 of the rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) of 10 June 2016.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant raises the following grounds of appeal:

Improper conduct of proceedings by the General Court: The appellant regards as deficient the fact that the General Court did not make use of its information tools pursuant to Article 24 of the Statute and Articles 88 and 89 of the Rules of Procedure. It should also have examined the Commission’s factual submissions in greater detail independently of the appellant’s request for the production of evidence. Contradictions in the Commission’s factual submissions provided sufficient grounds in this regard.

Incorrect treatment of the offer of evidence of 20 February 2017: The appellant submits that the General Court erred in failing to examine in greater detail the letter submitted as evidence by a member of the university scientific staff containing insider knowledge, despite having expressly admitted that letter as evidence.

The appellant complains that the General Court refused to hear the Commission’s spokesperson as a witness, even though the abovementioned document furnished sufficient justification for that person to be heard.

Presumption of legality not applicable: The appellant is of the view that, contrary to the findings of the General Court, the presumption of legality developed by the European Court of Justice is not applicable to submissions of an EU institution, which, if correct, would amount to a breach of the principles of sound administration.

The case-law cited by the General Court as regards the application of the presumption of legality relates to different case scenarios and cannot therefore be applied to the present case.

Failure to take account of indications as to the existence of further documents: The appellant, setting out once more the facts, disputes the finding of the General Court that it had not submitted any conclusive indications as to the existence of further documents.

Erroneous non-assessment of the appellant’s submissions regarding the obligation of transparency: The appellant notes that the General Court erroneously assumed the Commission’s assertion regarding the existence of further documents to be correct and therefore wrongly disregarded the appellant’s submissions on the obligation of transparency.

*

(1) OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.