# C_2013026EN.01005802.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/58

---

Action brought on 16 November 2012 — Koinοpraxia Τouristiki Loutrakiou v Commission

(Case T-498/12)

2013/C 26/118

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Koinοpraxia Τouristiki Loutrakiou AE, O.T.A. — Loutraki AE — Club Hotel Casino Loutraki Τouristikes kai Xenodokhiakes Epikhirisis AE (Loutraki, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the Commission’s confirmatory decision of 18 September 2012 — Αres (2012)1082114 — by which the applicant’s request for access to certain documents was refused, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s confirmatory decision of 18 September 2012 — Αres (2012)1082114 — by which the applicant’s request for access to certain documents was refused, and

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action the applicant seeks, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 18 September 2012, which finally refused the applicant’s confirmatory request for access to the letter of 16 May 2012 from the Greek authorities relating to the quantification of the amount of unlawful State aid to be recovered in accordance with the decision dated 24 May 2011 (1) of the European Commission’s Directorate General for Competition.

1

In support of its action the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

| | First, the applicant claims an infringement of the obligation on the administration to state reasons for the refusal decisions, given that in its reply, the administration confines itself to a general reference to the exceptions laid down in Regulation 1049/2001, without any further elaboration and without any real statement of reasons for the decision. |
| --- | --- |

First, the applicant claims an infringement of the obligation on the administration to state reasons for the refusal decisions, given that in its reply, the administration confines itself to a general reference to the exceptions laid down in Regulation 1049/2001, without any further elaboration and without any real statement of reasons for the decision.

| | Secondly, the applicant claims an infringement of the principle of transparency, contrary to the well known Regulation 1049/2001 and Regulation 659/1999, (2) given that the defendant is not providing to the public the widest possible access to documents by neither interpreting nor applying strictly the exceptions laid down in Regulation 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

Secondly, the applicant claims an infringement of the principle of transparency, contrary to the well known Regulation 1049/2001 and Regulation 659/1999, (2) given that the defendant is not providing to the public the widest possible access to documents by neither interpreting nor applying strictly the exceptions laid down in Regulation 1049/2001.

2

| | Lastly, the applicant claims an infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU, and of Articles 6 and 20 of Regulation 659/1999 in breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and by extension in breach of the principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

Lastly, the applicant claims an infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU, and of Articles 6 and 20 of Regulation 659/1999 in breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and by extension in breach of the principle of good administration.

---

(1)  Decision of the European Commission of 24 May 2011, Ε(2011) 3504 final, on State aid to certain Greek casinos No C 16/2010 (formerly ΝΝ 22/2010, formerly CP 318/2009).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty

2

---