# C_2014045EN.01003501.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/35

---

Action brought on 6 November 2013 — Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) and Luxembourg Industries v Commission

(Case T-578/13)

2014/C 45/60

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus); and Luxembourg Industries Ltd (Tel-Aviv, Israel) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendants: European Commission

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | Annul the contested decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision of 8 October 2013, notified to the applicants on 9 October 2013, concerning the publication of certain parts of the Peer Review Report and Final Addendum on Potassium Phosphonates in respect of which the Applicants claimed confidentiality pursuant to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (1) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 188/2011 (2) (the ‘Contested Decision’).

1

2

In support of their action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 14 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the fundamental right to the protection of business secrets enshrined in Article 339 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, following a misinterpretation of the above provisions and an erroneous assessment of the applicants’ claims for confidentiality. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 14 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the fundamental right to the protection of business secrets enshrined in Article 339 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, following a misinterpretation of the above provisions and an erroneous assessment of the applicants’ claims for confidentiality.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breaches the fundamental principles of EU law, the principle of sound administration and the applicants’ right of defence, by failing to give the applicants sufficient opportunity to defend and clarify the rationale behind their confidentiality claims. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breaches the fundamental principles of EU law, the principle of sound administration and the applicants’ right of defence, by failing to give the applicants sufficient opportunity to defend and clarify the rationale behind their confidentiality claims.

---

(1)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230, p.1)

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 188/2011 of 25 February 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the procedure for the assessment of active substances which were not on the market 2 years after the date of notification of that Directive (OJ L 53, p.51)

2

---