# C_2015056EN.01002501.xml

| 16.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/25

---

Action brought on 9 December 2014 — Philip Morris v Commission

(Case T-800/14)

(2015/C 056/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Ltd (Richmond, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Nordlander and M. Abenhaïm, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare the application for annulment admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the application for annulment admissible;

| — | Annul the Commission’s Decision Ares (2014) 3188066, dated 29 September 2014, in so far as it refused to grant the applicant full access to the requested documents, with the exception however, of the redacted personal data contained therein; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s Decision Ares (2014) 3188066, dated 29 September 2014, in so far as it refused to grant the applicant full access to the requested documents, with the exception however, of the redacted personal data contained therein;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs for these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs for these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Decision Ares(2014) 3188066 of 29 September 2014, whereby the Commission refused to grant the applicant full access to nine internal documents drawn up in the context of the preparatory works leading to the adoption of Directive 2014/40/EU on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products (1) (the ‘Contested Decision’).

1

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached its duty to state reasons by failing to explain — for each document and redaction — which relevant exception of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2) (the ‘Transparency Regulation’) it applied and on the basis of what factual circumstances and considerations. By relying on the same overall blanket arguments to justify its refusal on the grounds of the protection of court proceedings and legal advice, the Commission failed to state the reasons why disclosure of the requested documents would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine each of these interests. More specifically, the Contested Decision does not explain whether the justification invoked for each relevant refusal is ‘court proceedings’ or ‘legal advice’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached its duty to state reasons by failing to explain — for each document and redaction — which relevant exception of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2) (the ‘Transparency Regulation’) it applied and on the basis of what factual circumstances and considerations. By relying on the same overall blanket arguments to justify its refusal on the grounds of the protection of court proceedings and legal advice, the Commission failed to state the reasons why disclosure of the requested documents would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine each of these interests. More specifically, the Contested Decision does not explain whether the justification invoked for each relevant refusal is ‘court proceedings’ or ‘legal advice’.

2

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 4(2) second indent of the Transparency Regulation by failing to show how disclosure in each case would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine the protection of ‘legal advice’ or ‘court proceedings’. As regards the protection of ‘legal advice’, the Commission’s abstract justifications have all been dismissed in case law and the Commission provided no concrete explanation showing why, in this case, full disclosure of the requested documents would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine the protection of legal advice. As regards ‘court proceedings’, the Commission again failed to explain, concretely, why disclosure would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine the protection of ‘court proceedings’. A fortiori, the Commission failed to carry out a detailed and specific assessment of whether an overriding public interest could justify the disclosure of the requested documents. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 4(2) second indent of the Transparency Regulation by failing to show how disclosure in each case would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine the protection of ‘legal advice’ or ‘court proceedings’. As regards the protection of ‘legal advice’, the Commission’s abstract justifications have all been dismissed in case law and the Commission provided no concrete explanation showing why, in this case, full disclosure of the requested documents would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine the protection of legal advice. As regards ‘court proceedings’, the Commission again failed to explain, concretely, why disclosure would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine the protection of ‘court proceedings’. A fortiori, the Commission failed to carry out a detailed and specific assessment of whether an overriding public interest could justify the disclosure of the requested documents.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the Commission breached the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of the Transparency Regulation by failing to show that the relevant documents/redactions contain ‘opinions for internal use’, by failing to explain how disclosure of these documents would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine the protection of the decision-making process and by failing to properly balance the interest invoked against the overriding public interest in disclosure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the Commission breached the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of the Transparency Regulation by failing to show that the relevant documents/redactions contain ‘opinions for internal use’, by failing to explain how disclosure of these documents would ‘specifically and actually’ undermine the protection of the decision-making process and by failing to properly balance the interest invoked against the overriding public interest in disclosure.

---

(1)  Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC, OJ, 2014, L 127, p. 1.

1

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001of 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

---