# C_2015320EN.01004501.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/45

---

Action brought on 5 August 2015 — AlzChem v Commission

(Case T-451/15)

(2015/C 320/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: AlzChem AG (Trostberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Borsos, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the decision Ares (2015) 2176662 of the European Commission of 26 May 2015, taken pursuant to Article 4 of the Implementing Rules to 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, in response to application No GESTDEM 2015/1640; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision Ares (2015) 2176662 of the European Commission of 26 May 2015, taken pursuant to Article 4 of the Implementing Rules to 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, in response to application No GESTDEM 2015/1640; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error in law and a manifest error of assessment regarding the application of a general presumption in reaction to the exception for the protection of the purpose of EU investigations. The applicant puts forward the following errors:






  — | the Commission’s error in law regarding the application of the general exceptions; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error in law and a manifest error of assessment regarding the application of a general presumption in reaction to the exception for the protection of the purpose of EU investigations. The applicant puts forward the following errors:

—

the Commission’s error in law regarding the application of the general exceptions;

| — | the Commission’s error in law regarding the protection of the purpose of investigations; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission’s error in law regarding the protection of the purpose of investigations;

| — | the Commission’s error in law and manifest error of assessment regarding the assessment of the overriding public interest of ensuring an effective judicial review (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union); and |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission’s error in law and manifest error of assessment regarding the assessment of the overriding public interest of ensuring an effective judicial review (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union); and

| — | the Commission’s error in law regarding the application of the fundamental right of access to documents (Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union). |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission’s error in law regarding the application of the fundamental right of access to documents (Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and a manifest error of assessment regarding the application of the exception for the protection of commercial interests. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and a manifest error of assessment regarding the application of the exception for the protection of commercial interests.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons regarding the refusal of access to a non-confidential version or an on-site access to the documents. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons regarding the refusal of access to a non-confidential version or an on-site access to the documents.

---