# C_2018381EN.01002701.xml

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/27

---

Action brought on 9 August 2018 — Compañia de Tranvías de la Coruña v Commission

(Case T-485/18)

(2018/C 381/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Compañia de Tranvías de la Coruña, SA (A Coruña, Spain) (represented by: J. Monrabà Bagan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | annul European Commission decision C(2018) 3780 final of 7 June 2018 concerning access to documents; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission decision C(2018) 3780 final of 7 June 2018 concerning access to documents;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision fails to respect essential procedural requirements.






  — | The decision does not provide sufficient reasoning to deny or give only partial access to documents in view of the inexistent link between the pending Court proceedings relied upon (Joined Cases C-350/17 Mobit (1) and C-351/17 Autolinee Toscane (2)) and the request for access to documents. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision fails to respect essential procedural requirements.

—

The decision does not provide sufficient reasoning to deny or give only partial access to documents in view of the inexistent link between the pending Court proceedings relied upon (Joined Cases C-350/17 Mobit (1) and C-351/17 Autolinee Toscane (2)) and the request for access to documents.

| — | Sufficient reasoning is an essential procedural requirement and shall always be respected by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

Sufficient reasoning is an essential procedural requirement and shall always be respected by the European Commission.

| — | The lack of sufficient reasoning entails that the contested decision does not comply with Article 296, second paragraph, TFEU, and, thus, is to be considered void under Article 264, first paragraph, TFEU |
| --- | --- |

—

The lack of sufficient reasoning entails that the contested decision does not comply with Article 296, second paragraph, TFEU, and, thus, is to be considered void under Article 264, first paragraph, TFEU

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging, alternatively, the concurrence of an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents whose access has been denied by the contested decision.






  — | The documents whose access has been requested are of public interest since they would help interpreting essential points on EU regulations on public passenger transport services by rail and by road which have been previously applied by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging, alternatively, the concurrence of an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents whose access has been denied by the contested decision.

—

The documents whose access has been requested are of public interest since they would help interpreting essential points on EU regulations on public passenger transport services by rail and by road which have been previously applied by the European Commission.

| — | Thus, even were the Court to find a link between the abovementioned pending Joined Cases C-350/17 Mobit and C-351/17 Autolinee Toscane and the request for access to documents, Article 4(2), in fine, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (3) allows for access to documents when there is an overriding public interest. |
| --- | --- |

—

Thus, even were the Court to find a link between the abovementioned pending Joined Cases C-350/17 Mobit and C-351/17 Autolinee Toscane and the request for access to documents, Article 4(2), in fine, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (3) allows for access to documents when there is an overriding public interest.

| — | The relevance of the documents, not only for the applicant, but for any authority or stakeholder willing to apply EU regulations on public passenger transport services by rail and by road, constitutes an overriding public interest and, thus, access thereto should be granted. |
| --- | --- |

—

The relevance of the documents, not only for the applicant, but for any authority or stakeholder willing to apply EU regulations on public passenger transport services by rail and by road, constitutes an overriding public interest and, thus, access thereto should be granted.

---

(1)  Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 12 June 2017, Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l. v Regione Toscana (OJ 2017 C 330, p. 4).

(2)  Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 12 June 2017 — Autolinee Toscane SpA v Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l. (OJ 2017 C 330, p. 5).

(3)  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).

---