Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2011:496
Date: 2011-07-21
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Provisions governing the Institutions;Concentrations between undertakings;Access to documents
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful;Appeal - successful
Origin: United Kingdom;Sweden

summary printed in [2008] ECR II-335*, paragraph 75; Case T‑121/05 Borax Europe v Commission, not published in the ECR, summary printed in [2009] ECR II-27*, paragraph 66 et seq.; Case T‑166/05 Borax Europe v Commission, not published in the ECR, summary printed in [2009] ECR II-28*, paragraph 101 et seq.; Case T‑237/05 Éditions Jacob v Commission [2010] ECR II-0000, paragraph 141, challenged by the appeal in Case C‑404/10 P, OJ 2010 C 274, p. 19; and Case T‑111/07 Agrofert Holding v Commission [2010] ECR II-0000, paragraph 142, challenged by the appeal in Case C‑477/10 P, OJ 2010 C 328, p. 22. 15 – See above, point 29. 16 – Article 3(a) of the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, COM(2000) 30. 17 – COM(2000) 30, p. 4. 18 – See the two judgments cited in footnote 14 in Case T‑121/05 Borax Europe v Commission, paragraph 66, and Case T‑166/05, Borax Europe v Commission paragraph 101. 19 – Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, COM(2008) 229 final, p. 15 (recital 17) and 20 (Article 4(3) and (4)). 20 – Draft Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents of 12 May 2010 (PE439.989v01-00), p. 14 (recital 12c), 17 et seq. (recital 17) and 31 et seq. 21 – See my thoughts in the Opinion in Case C‑343/09 Afton Chemical [2010] ECR I‑0000, point 43 et seq. Although in its judgment of 8 July 2010, paragraph 38 et seq., the Court did not concur with my doubts about insufficient investigation of the problem area, this merely shows that they were not sufficient in that case to call into question the lawfulness of the decision. 22 – Joined Cases C‑39/05 P and C‑52/05 P Swedenand Turco v Council [2008] ECR I‑4723, paragraph 43; see also the judgments cited in footnote 12. 23 – See paragraph 102 et seq. of the contested judgment. 24 – See paragraph 108 et seq. of the contested judgment. 25 – Sweden v API and Commission, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 77; see also Case C‑139/07 P Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau, cited in footnote 12, paragraph 60. 26 – Sweden v API and Commission, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 81. 27 – See, with regard to the protection of judicial activities, Sweden v API and Commission, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 92. 28 – See, with regard to the protection of judicial activities, Sweden v API and Commission, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 93. 29 – See also, with regard to internal documents in cartel proceedings, Case T‑410/03 Hoechst v Commission [2008] ECR II-881, paragraph 165, with further references from the case-law of the Court of First Instance and an indirect reference to the order of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases 142/84 and 156/84 British American Tobacco and Reynolds Industries v Commission [1986] ECR 1899, paragraph 11. See also Case C‑310/93 P BPB Industries and British Gypsum v Commission [1995] ECR I-865, paragraph 22. 30 – Case C‑139/07 P Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau, cited in footnote 12, paragraph 58, with regard to the access to files in an aid procedure, and Sweden v API and Commission, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 100, with regard to access to pleadings submitted in court proceedings. 31 – See, with regard to competition law, Joined Cases C‑238/99 P, C‑244/99 P, C‑245/99 P, C‑247/99 P, C‑250/99 P to C‑252/99 P and C‑254/99 P Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and Others v Commission [2002] ECR I-8375, paragraph 321; Joined Cases C‑204/00 P, C‑205/00 P, C‑211/00 P, C‑213/00 P, C‑217/00 P and C‑219/00 P Aalborg Portland and Others v Commission [2004] ECR I-123, paragraph 68; and Case C‑407/08 P Knauf Gips v Commission [2010] ECR I-0000, paragraph 22; and with regard to disciplinary rules Case C‑432/04 Commission v Cresson [2006] ECR I-6387, paragraph 110. 32 – See above, point 65 et seq. 33 – See, with regard to the protection of judicial activities, Joined Cases C‑514/07 P, C‑528/07 P and C‑532/07 P Sweden v API and Commission, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 130 et seq. 34 – See above, point 46 et seq. 35 – Case C‑139/07 P Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau, cited in footnote 12, paragraphs 1 and 14 et seq. 36 – Swedenand Turco v Council, cited in footnote 22, paragraph 59 et seq. 37 – See above, point 65 et seq. 38 – See above, point 46 et seq. 39 – See MyTravel v Commission cited in footnote 9, in particular paragraph 37 et seq. 40 – Swedenand Turco v Council, cited in footnote 22, paragraph 49. 41 – Sweden v API and Commission, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 152, and, with regard to legal advice relating to legislative processes, Joined Cases C‑39/05 P and C‑52/05 P Swedenand Turco v Council, cited in footnote 22, paragraph 67. The judgment in Case C‑139/07 P Commission v Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau, cited in footnote 12, paragraph 62 and 70, is unclear is this regard. 42 – Sweden v API and Commission, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 157 et seq. 43 – Case C‑136/92 P Commission v Brazzelli Lualdi and Others [1994] ECR I-1981, paragraph 59; Joined Cases C‑74/00 P and C‑75/00 P Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano v Commission [2002] ECR I-7869, paragraph 177; and Case C‑280/08 P Deutsche Telekom v Commission [2010] ECR I-0000, paragraph 34. 44 – Second indent of Article 4(2) and second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001. See above, under A and B. 45 – Second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. 46 – Third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. 47 – See above, point 108 et seq.