# C_2012373EN.01000701.xml

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/7 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Action brought on 25 September 2012 — LVM v Commission

(Case T-419/12)

2012/C 373/12

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster a. G. (Münster, Germany) (represented by: A. Birnstiel, H. Heinrich and J.-O. Schrotz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission’s decision of 17 July 2012 by which a request by the applicant pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001( 1 ) for access to certain documents in a cartel proceeding (COMP/39.125 — Carglass) was refused; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicant. |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging failure to assess the documents individually identified in the application
—
In the context of the first plea, the applicant submits that the decision is not based on a specific and individual assessment of each document. In the applicant’s view, the contested decision is based on the legally erroneous premiss that there is a general presumption that the circumstances of an exception apply in the present case. | — | In the context of the first plea, the applicant submits that the decision is not based on a specific and individual assessment of each document. In the applicant’s view, the contested decision is based on the legally erroneous premiss that there is a general presumption that the circumstances of an exception apply in the present case. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | In the context of the first plea, the applicant submits that the decision is not based on a specific and individual assessment of each document. In the applicant’s view, the contested decision is based on the legally erroneous premiss that there is a general presumption that the circumstances of an exception apply in the present case. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons
—
The applicant submits that, in its decision, the Commission justified the comprehensive rejection of the applicant’s request on the basis of general considerations only, and thus inadequately. The applicant regards this as a breach of the obligation to state reasons and thus as a breach of essential procedural requirements. | — | The applicant submits that, in its decision, the Commission justified the comprehensive rejection of the applicant’s request on the basis of general considerations only, and thus inadequately. The applicant regards this as a breach of the obligation to state reasons and thus as a breach of essential procedural requirements. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant submits that, in its decision, the Commission justified the comprehensive rejection of the applicant’s request on the basis of general considerations only, and thus inadequately. The applicant regards this as a breach of the obligation to state reasons and thus as a breach of essential procedural requirements. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging errors of law in the interpretation and application of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001
—
By the third plea the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law in its interpretation and application of the standard exceptions provided for in the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. In the applicant’s view, the Commission disregards the relationship between rule and exception and proceeds on the basis of far too broad an understanding of the ‘protection of investigations’ and of the concept of ‘commercial interests’. | — | By the third plea the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law in its interpretation and application of the standard exceptions provided for in the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. In the applicant’s view, the Commission disregards the relationship between rule and exception and proceeds on the basis of far too broad an understanding of the ‘protection of investigations’ and of the concept of ‘commercial interests’. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | By the third plea the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law in its interpretation and application of the standard exceptions provided for in the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. In the applicant’s view, the Commission disregards the relationship between rule and exception and proceeds on the basis of far too broad an understanding of the ‘protection of investigations’ and of the concept of ‘commercial interests’. | | |

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to take account of the private law enforcement of cartel law as a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001
—
By the fourth plea, the applicant submits that the Commission wrongly denied that there was an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents requested. According to the applicant, the Commission should, particularly when weighing up the various interests, have taken account of the fact that the private law enforcement of cartel law also constitutes a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. | — | By the fourth plea, the applicant submits that the Commission wrongly denied that there was an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents requested. According to the applicant, the Commission should, particularly when weighing up the various interests, have taken account of the fact that the private law enforcement of cartel law also constitutes a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | By the fourth plea, the applicant submits that the Commission wrongly denied that there was an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents requested. According to the applicant, the Commission should, particularly when weighing up the various interests, have taken account of the fact that the private law enforcement of cartel law also constitutes a public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. | | |

---

( 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).

---