# C_2011238EN.01003402.xml

| 13.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/34

---

Action brought on 15 June 2011 — MasterCard and Others v Commission

(Case T-330/11)

2011/C 238/59

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: MasterCard, Inc. (Wilmington, United States), MasterCard International, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) and MasterCard Europe SPRL (Waterloo, Belgium) (represented by: B. Amory, V. Brophy and S. McInnes, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

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

—

Declare the application admissible;

| — | Annul, in its entirety, the Commission’s negative decision based on the exception in Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of 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); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, in its entirety, the Commission’s negative decision based on the exception in Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of 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);

| — | Declare the Commission’s interpretation of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to be unfounded in law; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the Commission’s interpretation of Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to be unfounded in law; and

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Articles 4(3) and 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as:






  — | The Commission has not established that the conditions of Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are fulfilled; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Articles 4(3) and 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as:

—

The Commission has not established that the conditions of Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are fulfilled;

| — | The elements relied on by the Commission are factually inaccurate; and |
| --- | --- |

—

The elements relied on by the Commission are factually inaccurate; and

| — | There is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents provided by EIM Business and Policy Research in the framework of the study on ‘Costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods’ (COMP/2009/D1/020) |
| --- | --- |

—

There is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents provided by EIM Business and Policy Research in the framework of the study on ‘Costs and benefits to merchants of accepting different payment methods’ (COMP/2009/D1/020)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law by breaching Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as well as Article 2 of the Annex to the Commission’s Decision amending its Rules of Procedure (OJ 2010 L 55, p. 60), as:






  — | The Commission illegally reinitiated the timing for review; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error of law by breaching Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as well as Article 2 of the Annex to the Commission’s Decision amending its Rules of Procedure (OJ 2010 L 55, p. 60), as:

—

The Commission illegally reinitiated the timing for review; and

| — | The Commission illegally extended the timing for review by 15 working days. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission illegally extended the timing for review by 15 working days.

---