# C_2014045EN.01003902.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/39 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Action brought on 3 December 2013 — Rogesa v Commission

(Case T-643/13)

2014/C 45/69

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and P. Schütter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 25 September 2013 (Ref GestDem No 2013/1504), and |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | Right of access to the contested documents and lack of grounds for refusal under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001( 1 )
—
The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006( 2 ) and Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, as it has a right of access to the documents requested by it and grounds for refusing access do not exist. —
The applicant maintains that the requested documents do not contain commercially sensitive data within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and that in any event an overriding public interest justifying disclosure of the documents exists. —
The applicant further submits that the ground for refusal pursuant to Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not apply, as the decision-making process, on which the Commission relies, was not available when the contested decision was made. The relevant Commission decision (2013/448/EU) was issued on 5 September 2013. —
The applicant also claims that the Commission, in any event, had to grant partial access, if necessary by redacting identification characteristics. The Commission’s decision also infringes the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TUE. | — | The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006( 2 ) and Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, as it has a right of access to the documents requested by it and grounds for refusing access do not exist. | — | The applicant maintains that the requested documents do not contain commercially sensitive data within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and that in any event an overriding public interest justifying disclosure of the documents exists. | — | The applicant further submits that the ground for refusal pursuant to Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not apply, as the decision-making process, on which the Commission relies, was not available when the contested decision was made. The relevant Commission decision (2013/448/EU) was issued on 5 September 2013. | — | The applicant also claims that the Commission, in any event, had to grant partial access, if necessary by redacting identification characteristics. The Commission’s decision also infringes the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TUE. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006( 2 ) and Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, as it has a right of access to the documents requested by it and grounds for refusing access do not exist. | | | | | | | | |
| — | The applicant maintains that the requested documents do not contain commercially sensitive data within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and that in any event an overriding public interest justifying disclosure of the documents exists. | | | | | | | | |
| — | The applicant further submits that the ground for refusal pursuant to Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not apply, as the decision-making process, on which the Commission relies, was not available when the contested decision was made. The relevant Commission decision (2013/448/EU) was issued on 5 September 2013. | | | | | | | | |
| — | The applicant also claims that the Commission, in any event, had to grant partial access, if necessary by redacting identification characteristics. The Commission’s decision also infringes the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TUE. | | | | | | | | |

| 2. | Procedural irregularity
—
The applicant submits that Article 8 of Regulation No 1049/2001 has been infringed as the Commission did not observe the time-limit laid down by the provision. | — | The applicant submits that Article 8 of Regulation No 1049/2001 has been infringed as the Commission did not observe the time-limit laid down by the provision. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant submits that Article 8 of Regulation No 1049/2001 has been infringed as the Commission did not observe the time-limit laid down by the provision. | | |

---

( 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).

( 2 )  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).

---