# C_2017347EN.01002601.xml

| 16.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/26

---

Action brought on 4 July 2017 — Arca Capital Bohemia v Commission

(Case T-441/17)

(2017/C 347/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Arca Capital Bohemia a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Nedelka, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission decision COMP/F3/NB/tt*D-2017/025322 of 13 March 2017 partially refusing access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 relating to case COMP/SA. 25076 (2011/NN) — Privatisation of Rental Housing — Karbon Invest; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission decision COMP/F3/NB/tt*D-2017/025322 of 13 March 2017 partially refusing access to documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 relating to case COMP/SA. 25076 (2011/NN) — Privatisation of Rental Housing — Karbon Invest;

| — | annul Commission decision C(2017) 3129 final of 4 May 2017 confirming Commission decision COMP/F3/NB/tt*D-2017/025322 of 13 March 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission decision C(2017) 3129 final of 4 May 2017 confirming Commission decision COMP/F3/NB/tt*D-2017/025322 of 13 March 2017;

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the exceptions laid down in Article 4(2), first and third indents, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 were misapplied.






  — | The applicant alleges in this regard that the defendant misapplied relevant case-law which, in its view, does not apply to cases in which the administrative file has been closed. Also, in State aid cases, there is a very strong public interest in obtaining as much information as possible in order to control State bodies and different considerations should also apply to arguments based on commercial interests than those which pertain in merger or cartel cases. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the exceptions laid down in Article 4(2), first and third indents, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 were misapplied.

—

The applicant alleges in this regard that the defendant misapplied relevant case-law which, in its view, does not apply to cases in which the administrative file has been closed. Also, in State aid cases, there is a very strong public interest in obtaining as much information as possible in order to control State bodies and different considerations should also apply to arguments based on commercial interests than those which pertain in merger or cartel cases.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.






  — | The applicant advances arguments in this regard to the effect that the privatisation in question had a grossly negative social impact and refers to widespread suspicion that the process involved wrongdoing on the part of State bodies. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.

—

The applicant advances arguments in this regard to the effect that the privatisation in question had a grossly negative social impact and refers to widespread suspicion that the process involved wrongdoing on the part of State bodies.

---