# C_2017144EN.01004901.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/49

---

Action brought on 2 March 2017 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T-134/17)

(2017/C 144/68)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: S. Rating and Y. Martínez Mata, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Decision C(2017) 736 final of the European Commission of 2 February 2017 in Case GESTDEM 2016/6034 to 2016/6044; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision C(2017) 736 final of the European Commission of 2 February 2017 in Case GESTDEM 2016/6034 to 2016/6044;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application has been brought against the decision confirming a decision refusing access to the documents sought by Hércules CF, in relation to certain documents in the administrative file that led to the adoption of Decision C(2016) 4060 final of 4 July 2016 on the State Aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for Valencia Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva, Hércules Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva and Elche Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva.

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in concluding that access to the requested documents could be refused on the basis of the third and first indents of Article 4(2) of 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. 4).






  — | The applicant argues, in that respect, that the Commission automatically applied the general presumption of confidentiality of the administrative file in State aid proceedings established by the case-law; and that the Commission incorrectly applied, by analogy, the case-law concerning merger cases, in relation to the effects on the commercial interests of third parties. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in concluding that access to the requested documents could be refused on the basis of the third and first indents of Article 4(2) of 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. 4).

—

The applicant argues, in that respect, that the Commission automatically applied the general presumption of confidentiality of the administrative file in State aid proceedings established by the case-law; and that the Commission incorrectly applied, by analogy, the case-law concerning merger cases, in relation to the effects on the commercial interests of third parties.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission incorrectly applied Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001.






  — | The applicant argues in this respect that the case-law relating to merger cases is also inapplicable by analogy here. While, in those cases, it is understandable that the information continues to be sensitive after the Commission’s decision, that is not the case as regards a single loan, the conditions of which the Commission considers to be incompatible with the TFEU. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission incorrectly applied Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

—

The applicant argues in this respect that the case-law relating to merger cases is also inapplicable by analogy here. While, in those cases, it is understandable that the information continues to be sensitive after the Commission’s decision, that is not the case as regards a single loan, the conditions of which the Commission considers to be incompatible with the TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging that, even if the confidentiality grounds raised by the Commission were well-founded in this case, there is an overriding public interest which justifies granting access to the documents requested, namely ensuring that the applicant is adequately able to exercise the rights of defence laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging that, even if the confidentiality grounds raised by the Commission were well-founded in this case, there is an overriding public interest which justifies granting access to the documents requested, namely ensuring that the applicant is adequately able to exercise the rights of defence laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging the infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in that, ultimately, the Commission is required to offer at least partial access to the requested information. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging the infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in that, ultimately, the Commission is required to offer at least partial access to the requested information.

---