# C_2017318EN.01001701.xml

| 25.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/17 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Rogesa v Commission

(Case T-475/17)

(2017/C 318/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 20 June 2017 or, in the alternative, the Commission’s decision of 11 July 2017 refusing the applicant’s confirmatory application of 29 May 2017 (Reference GestDem No 2017/1788); and |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant invokes three pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law: the conditions governing entitlement to access to the documents were satisfied
—
The applicant submits that the contested decision infringes the first paragraph of Article 3 of Regulation No 1367/2006,( 1 ) in conjunction with Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001,( 2 ) since it is entitled to have access to the documents which it requested. | — | The applicant submits that the contested decision infringes the first paragraph of Article 3 of Regulation No 1367/2006,( 1 ) in conjunction with Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001,( 2 ) since it is entitled to have access to the documents which it requested. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | The applicant submits that the contested decision infringes the first paragraph of Article 3 of Regulation No 1367/2006,( 1 ) in conjunction with Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001,( 2 ) since it is entitled to have access to the documents which it requested. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law: there are no grounds for refusal under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001
—
The applicant submits that the requested documents do not contain commercially sensitive data within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and that there is, in any event, an overriding public interest justifying disclosure of the documents. —
The applicant further submits that the ground for refusal pursuant to the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, under which access to a document may be refused where its disclosure would undermine the protection of court proceedings and of legal advice, also does not obtain since Case C-80/16 (ArcelorMittal Atlantique and Lorraine) pending before the Court of Justice was practically concluded by the judgment of 26 July 2017. —
The applicant also claims that the Commission was, in any event, obliged to grant partial access, if necessary by redacting confidential data. The Commission’s decision therefore also infringes Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TEU. | — | The applicant submits that the requested documents do not contain commercially sensitive data within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and that there is, in any event, an overriding public interest justifying disclosure of the documents. | — | The applicant further submits that the ground for refusal pursuant to the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, under which access to a document may be refused where its disclosure would undermine the protection of court proceedings and of legal advice, also does not obtain since Case C-80/16 (ArcelorMittal Atlantique and Lorraine) pending before the Court of Justice was practically concluded by the judgment of 26 July 2017. | — | The applicant also claims that the Commission was, in any event, obliged to grant partial access, if necessary by redacting confidential data. The Commission’s decision therefore also infringes Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TEU. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant submits that the requested documents do not contain commercially sensitive data within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and that there is, in any event, an overriding public interest justifying disclosure of the documents. | | | | | | |
| — | The applicant further submits that the ground for refusal pursuant to the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, under which access to a document may be refused where its disclosure would undermine the protection of court proceedings and of legal advice, also does not obtain since Case C-80/16 (ArcelorMittal Atlantique and Lorraine) pending before the Court of Justice was practically concluded by the judgment of 26 July 2017. | | | | | | |
| — | The applicant also claims that the Commission was, in any event, obliged to grant partial access, if necessary by redacting confidential data. The Commission’s decision therefore also infringes Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TEU. | | | | | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law: the Commission committed a procedural error
—
Lastly, the applicant submits that Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has been infringed. Despite two extensions of the time limit, most recently for an indefinite period, no decision had been taken, by the date on which the action was lodged, on the confirmatory application made by the applicant on 29 May 2017. Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 provides only for the possibility of a single extension of the time limit by 15 working days and not an extension for an indefinite period. | — | Lastly, the applicant submits that Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has been infringed. Despite two extensions of the time limit, most recently for an indefinite period, no decision had been taken, by the date on which the action was lodged, on the confirmatory application made by the applicant on 29 May 2017. Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 provides only for the possibility of a single extension of the time limit by 15 working days and not an extension for an indefinite period. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | Lastly, the applicant submits that Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has been infringed. Despite two extensions of the time limit, most recently for an indefinite period, no decision had been taken, by the date on which the action was lodged, on the confirmatory application made by the applicant on 29 May 2017. Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 provides only for the possibility of a single extension of the time limit by 15 working days and not an extension for an indefinite period. | | |

---

( 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).

---