# C_2019016EN.01002901.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/29

---

Appeal brought on 11 September 2018 by Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2018 in Case T-643/13, Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH v European Commission

(Case C-568/18 P)

(2019/C 16/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and D. Jacob, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 in Case T-643/13; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2018 in Case T-643/13;

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 15 September 2013 with reference GestDem 2013/1504; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 15 September 2013 with reference GestDem 2013/1504;

| — | in the alternative, set aside the General Court’s judgment and refer the matter back to the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, set aside the General Court’s judgment and refer the matter back to the General Court.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The applicant relies on the following grounds of appeal:

| 1. | The General Court misconstrued the requirements set out in Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (1) for a refusal to grant free access to environmental information. It interpreted too broadly the ground for refusal set out in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (2) in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, in the light of the Aarhus Convention guidelines. The General Court erred in law in assuming that information on the CO2 efficiency of an industrial plant was commercially sensitive information. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court misconstrued the requirements set out in Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (1) for a refusal to grant free access to environmental information. It interpreted too broadly the ground for refusal set out in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (2) in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, in the light of the Aarhus Convention guidelines. The General Court erred in law in assuming that information on the CO2 efficiency of an industrial plant was commercially sensitive information.

| 2. | The General Court infringed Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by failing to recognise the existence of environmental information on emissions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court infringed Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by failing to recognise the existence of environmental information on emissions.

| 3. | Furthermore, the General Court also failed to take sufficient account of the overwhelming public interest in access to the environmental information at issue, as demonstrated by the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Furthermore, the General Court also failed to take sufficient account of the overwhelming public interest in access to the environmental information at issue, as demonstrated by the appellant.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies, OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13.

(2)  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.

---