10

The requests for access to certain documents made by Odile Jacob are detailed as followed in the judgment under appeal: ‘1 By letter of 27 January 2005, [Odile Jacob] asked the Commission …, pursuant to Regulation … No 1049/2001 …, for access to a number of documents relating to the administrative procedure (“the procedure at issue”) which led to the adoption of Commission Decision 2004/422/EC of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP) (OJ 2004 L 125, p. 54; “the decision on compatibility”), so that it might use them in support of its action in Case T-279/04 Éditions Odile Jacob v Commission, pending before the Court, in which it seeks the annulment of the decision on compatibility. The documents in question were: (a) the Commission’s decision of 5 June 2003 to initiate an in-depth investigation under Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation … No 4064/89 … in the procedure at issue; (b) the full text of the sale and purchase agreement signed on 3 December 2002 by Natexis Banques populaires SA, of the one part, and Segex Sarl and Ecrinvest 4 SA, of the other part; (c) all the correspondence between the Commission and Natexis Banques populaires between September 2002 and the date of notification of the concentration, 14 April 2003; (d) all the correspondence between the Commission and Lagardère SCA [(“Lagardère”)] between September 2002 and the date of the said notification; (e) the contract under which Natexis Banques populaires acquired ownership of the shareholdings and assets of [VUP] from Vivendi Universal SA on 20 December 2002; (f) Lagardère’s promise of 22 October 2002 to purchase VUP from Vivendi Universal; (g) all the Commission’s internal memoranda relating, exclusively or otherwise, to the application of Article 3(5)(a) of Regulation No 4064/89 to the acquisition of VUP’s assets by Natexis SA/Investima 10 SAS, including memoranda exchanged between the Commission’s Directorate-General (DG) for Competition and its Legal Service; (h) all the correspondence between the Commission and Natexis relating, exclusively or otherwise, to the application of Article 3(5)(a) of Regulation No 4064/89 to the acquisition of VUP’s assets by Natexis/Investima 10. 2 By letter of 27 January 2005, [Odile Jacob] sent the Commission a request for access to another set of documents, so that it might use them in support of its action in Case T-452/04 Éditions Odile Jacob v Commission, pending before the Court, in which it seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 July 2004 on the approval of Wendel Investissement SA as purchaser of the assets sold by Lagardère, in accordance with the decision on compatibility (“the approval decision”). The documents in question were: (a) the Commission’s decision approving the appointment of the trustee charged with ensuring the observance of the commitments entered into by Lagardère at the time when the concentration was authorised by the decision on compatibility; (b) the mandate conferred by Lagardère upon Salustro Reydel Management SA to ensure the observance of the commitments entered into by Lagardère at the time when the concentration was authorised by the decision on compatibility; (c) any requests by the Commission for amendment of the draft mandate and Lagardère’s replies thereto; (d) the mandate conferred by Lagardère upon the Hold Separate Manager, responsible for the management of the assets in accordance with the decision on compatibility; (e) the Commission’s decision approving the appointment of the Hold Separate Manager; (f) the draft agreement signed on 28 May 2004 by Lagardère and Wendel Investissement on the repurchase of the transferred assets; (g) Lagardère’s letter to the Commission of 4 June 2004 seeking approval of Wendel Investissement as the repurchaser of the transferred assets; (h) the request for information that the Commission sent to Lagardère on 11 June 2004 pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation No 4064/89, designed to enable the Commission to assess whether the conditions for approving the company Wendel Investissement had been satisfied; (i) Lagardère’s reply of 21 June 2004 to that request for information; (j) the trustee’s report assessing Wendel Investissement’s proposal to act as purchaser of the transferred assets against the approval criteria, submitted to the Commission on 5 July 2004. 3 By fax dated 15 February 2005, the Director-General of the Competition DG sent [Odile Jacob] the Commission’s letter of 5 February 2004 approving the appointment of the trustee and the Hold Separate Manager (the documents referred to in paragraph 2(a) and (e) above), and informed it that the remaining documents could not be sent to it as they were covered by the exceptions laid down in the first to third indents of Article 4(2) and in the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and there was no overriding public interest in their disclosure. 4 By letter of 18 February 2005, [Odile Jacob] made a confirmatory application (“the request for access”) concerning the documents to which it had been denied access. 5 On 14 March 2005, the Secretary-General of the Commission informed [Odile Jacob] that the time-limit for replying to its request would be extended, in accordance with Article 8(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, until 7 April 2005, because of the complexity of the request for access and the number of documents sought.’