# C_2012174EN.01002902.xml

| 16.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/29

---

Action brought on 23 April 2012 — HUK-Coburg v Commission

(Case T-185/12)

2012/C 174/48

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: HUK-Coburg Haftpflicht-Unterstützungs-Kasse kraftfahrender Beamter Deutschlands a.G. in Coburg (Coburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Birnstiel, H. Heinrich and A. Meier, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 23 February 2012 rejecting the applicant’s request for access to certain documents in cartel proceedings (COMP/39.125 — Carglass); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 23 February 2012 rejecting the applicant’s request for access to certain documents in cartel proceedings (COMP/39.125 — Carglass);

| — | order the defendant to pay its own costs and those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay its own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: failure to examine the individual documents requested
  In the context of its first plea in law, the applicant submits that the decision was not based on a concrete and individual assessment of each of the documents concerned. In the applicant’s view, the contested decision was based on the wrongful premiss that, in this case, it would generally be presumed that an exception would apply. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: failure to examine the individual documents requested

In the context of its first plea in law, the applicant submits that the decision was not based on a concrete and individual assessment of each of the documents concerned. In the applicant’s view, the contested decision was based on the wrongful premiss that, in this case, it would generally be presumed that an exception would apply.

| 2. | Second plea in law: infringement of the duty to state reasons
  The applicant argues that the Commission provided mere blanket considerations in rejecting the application in its entirety, thereby failing to provide sufficient grounds for its decision. In the applicant’s view, this constitutes an infringement of the duty to state reasons and, thereby, an infringement of essential procedural requirements. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: infringement of the duty to state reasons

The applicant argues that the Commission provided mere blanket considerations in rejecting the application in its entirety, thereby failing to provide sufficient grounds for its decision. In the applicant’s view, this constitutes an infringement of the duty to state reasons and, thereby, an infringement of essential procedural requirements.

| 3. | Third plea in law: unlawful interpretation and application of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)

  By its third plea in law, the applicant submits that the Commission’s interpretation and application of the exceptions listed in the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 were unlawful. In its view, the Commission failed to recognise the relationship between the rule and the exceptions thereto and proceeded on the basis of a much too broad understanding of ‘protection of investigations’ and of the term ‘commercial interests’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: unlawful interpretation and application of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)

1

By its third plea in law, the applicant submits that the Commission’s interpretation and application of the exceptions listed in the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 were unlawful. In its view, the Commission failed to recognise the relationship between the rule and the exceptions thereto and proceeded on the basis of a much too broad understanding of ‘protection of investigations’ and of the term ‘commercial interests’.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: failure to take account of the fact that the implementation of cartel law, which is of a private law nature, constitutes an overriding public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001
  By its fourth plea in law, the applicant maintains that, in failing to release the documents concerned, the Commission wrongly denied an overriding public interest. In the applicant’s opinion, in weighing up the interests in releasing the documents, the Commission should have taken account of the fact, in particular, that the implementation of cartel law, which is of a private law nature, also constitutes an overriding public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: failure to take account of the fact that the implementation of cartel law, which is of a private law nature, constitutes an overriding public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001

By its fourth plea in law, the applicant maintains that, in failing to release the documents concerned, the Commission wrongly denied an overriding public interest. In the applicant’s opinion, in weighing up the interests in releasing the documents, the Commission should have taken account of the fact, in particular, that the implementation of cartel law, which is of a private law nature, also constitutes an overriding 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).

1

---