# C_2015026EN.01003701.xml

| 26.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/37

---

Action brought on 14 November 2014 — Herbert Smith Freehills/Commission

(Case T-755/14)

(2015/C 026/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Herbert Smith Freehills LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Wytinck, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Decision GESTDEM 2014/2070 of the European Commission, of 24 September 2014, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision GESTDEM 2014/2070 of the European Commission, of 24 September 2014, and

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of the Applicant in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the Applicant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Applicant seeks the annulment of Decision GESTDEM 2014/2070, of 24 September 2014, whereby the Commission refused the Applicant’s request for access under Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) to certain documents related to the adoption of 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 (2).

1

2

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in that none of the undisclosed documents identified by the Commission falls within the scope of the exception relating to the protection of court proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in that none of the undisclosed documents identified by the Commission falls within the scope of the exception relating to the protection of court proceedings.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in that certain undisclosed documents identified by the Commission do not fall within the scope of the exception relating to the protection of legal advice. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in that certain undisclosed documents identified by the Commission do not fall within the scope of the exception relating to the protection of legal advice.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents identified pursuant to the Applicant's access to documents request. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents identified pursuant to the Applicant's access to documents request.

---

(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 2001 L 145, p. 43).

1

(2)  OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1.

2

---