# C_2017402EN.01004502.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/45

---

Action brought on 25 September 2017 — ViaSat v Commission

(Case T-649/17)

(2017/C 402/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ViaSat, Inc. (Carlsbad, California, United States) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, L. Marco Perpiñà and S. Semey, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s implied negative decision of 13 July 2017 resulting from the failure by the Commission to reply within the prescribed time limit to the applicant’s confirmatory application of 31 May 2017 in relation to the access to documents request registered on 20 March 2017 under reference GestDem No 2017/1725; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s implied negative decision of 13 July 2017 resulting from the failure by the Commission to reply within the prescribed time limit to the applicant’s confirmatory application of 31 May 2017 in relation to the access to documents request registered on 20 March 2017 under reference GestDem No 2017/1725;

o

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached its duty to state reasons under Article 296(2) TFEU.






  — | The applicant argues in the first place that there has been an absolute failure to state reasons, given the implied refusal of access to the requested document, entitled ‘Roadmap of measures towards the compliance of selected and authorised MSS operators with common conditions of Decision 626/2008/EC (1), including intermediate new steps and corresponding time limits’. To the extent that the Court should consider that the Commission discharged its duty to state reasons already in the refusal letter of 5 May 2017, under Article 7(1) of Regulation 1049/2001 (2), in response to the applicant’s initial request, the reasoning therein by way of fiction also being the reasoning of the implicit decision, adopted pursuant to Article 8(3) of that regulation, the applicant requests the Court to consider the subsequent pleas directed at that reasoning. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached its duty to state reasons under Article 296(2) TFEU.

—

The applicant argues in the first place that there has been an absolute failure to state reasons, given the implied refusal of access to the requested document, entitled ‘Roadmap of measures towards the compliance of selected and authorised MSS operators with common conditions of Decision 626/2008/EC (1), including intermediate new steps and corresponding time limits’. To the extent that the Court should consider that the Commission discharged its duty to state reasons already in the refusal letter of 5 May 2017, under Article 7(1) of Regulation 1049/2001 (2), in response to the applicant’s initial request, the reasoning therein by way of fiction also being the reasoning of the implicit decision, adopted pursuant to Article 8(3) of that regulation, the applicant requests the Court to consider the subsequent pleas directed at that reasoning.

1

2

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to perform a concrete and individual examination of the requested document. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to perform a concrete and individual examination of the requested document.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state reasons and erroneously applied the exception concerning the protection of commercial interests, as referred to in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state reasons and erroneously applied the exception concerning the protection of commercial interests, as referred to in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state reasons and erroneously applied the exception concerning the protection of investigations, as referred to in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state reasons and erroneously applied the exception concerning the protection of investigations, as referred to in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erroneously determined there to be no overriding interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erroneously determined there to be no overriding interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erroneously determined that partial access was not possible within the meaning of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erroneously determined that partial access was not possible within the meaning of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001.

---

(1)  Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (OJ 2008 L 172, p. 15).

1

(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).

2

---