# C_2023112EN.01001701.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/17

---

Appeal brought on 24 November 2022 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 September 2022 in joined Cases T-371/20 and T-554/20 Pollinis France v Commission

(Case C-726/22 P)

(2023/C 112/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, C. Ehrbar, G. Gattinara, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Pollinis France

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | order the applicant to bear the costs arising from cases T-371/20 and T-554/20 and from the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant to bear the costs arising from cases T-371/20 and T-554/20 and from the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the European Commission raises two pleas in law.

| 1. | The General Court misinterpreted the concept of ‘matter where the decision has not been taken by the institution’ under the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No1049/2001.
  The General Court misapplied the concept of ‘matters where the decision has not be taken by the institution’ by confining the application of the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 to matters submitted for deliberation within the institution or imminently submitted for deliberation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The General Court misinterpreted the concept of ‘matter where the decision has not been taken by the institution’ under the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No1049/2001.

The General Court misapplied the concept of ‘matters where the decision has not be taken by the institution’ by confining the application of the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 to matters submitted for deliberation within the institution or imminently submitted for deliberation.

| 2. | The General Court erred in law when assessing ‘if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution's decision-making process’ within the meaning of Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation No 1049/2001. The second plea is divided in two parts.
  Firstly, the General Court substituted its own interpretation of the contested decisions and adopted a contradictory reasoning.
  Secondly, the General Court erroneously rejected the relevance of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers and the Standards Rules of procedure for committees with the view to assessing ‘if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution's decision-making process’. Moreover, it did not use the correct legal standards to assess relevant factors and it omitted to assess the relevant factors as part of a body of consistent evidence. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The General Court erred in law when assessing ‘if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution's decision-making process’ within the meaning of Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation No 1049/2001. The second plea is divided in two parts.

Firstly, the General Court substituted its own interpretation of the contested decisions and adopted a contradictory reasoning.

Secondly, the General Court erroneously rejected the relevance of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers and the Standards Rules of procedure for committees with the view to assessing ‘if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution's decision-making process’. Moreover, it did not use the correct legal standards to assess relevant factors and it omitted to assess the relevant factors as part of a body of consistent evidence.

---