Case T-210/15: Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission

Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission

(Case T-210/15)

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld and O. Corzilius, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission of 17 February 2015 on the applicant’s application for access to documents in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — GESTDEM 2014/4555;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The access to documents requested concerns abuse proceedings under Article 102 TFEU.

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

1. First plea in law: Infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 ( 1 ) and the duty to state reasons — The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission erred in not examining the specific exception for the protection of decision-making processes and the restrictive conditions thereof although that provision expressly governs the present case of a requested disclosure of documents after conclusion of the proceedings. In addition, the Commission has not justified that action.

2. Second plea in law: Infringement of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the absence of intervention of the exceptions — The applicant submits that, by relying on a general presumption, the Commission erred in affirming the applicability of the exceptions for the protection of commercial interests of third parties and the purpose of investigations to documents of concluded proceedings. The Commission hereby infringed the obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the documents concerning the application for access. In addition, the Commission did not prove any specific impairment of the protected interests.

3. Third plea in law: Infringement of the last subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 owing to the existence of an overriding public interest in the disclosure of information — Within the context of this plea, the applicant asserts that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents requested. That overriding public interest concerns the promotion of good administrative practice, the execution of compliance measures, the examination of possible claims for damages and the judicial review of administrative actions. The applicant takes the view that, without the access to documents, there is no possibility for it to review the Commission’s administrative action concerning it.

4. Fourth plea in law: Infringement of Article 4(4) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the absence of consultation of third parties — The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission erred in law in not consulting third parties on the release of the documents concerning it.

5. Fifth plea in law: Infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the absence of a grant of partial access to documents — According to this plea in law, the Commission erred in refusing partial access to documents.

6. Sixth plea in law: Infringement of primary law due to breach of the fundamental right of access to documents under Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the obligation of transparency under Article 15(3) TFEU — The applicant submits that the right of access to the documents requested (in the alternative) must be derived directly from primary law and must be granted. The complete denial of access constitutes a disproportionate interference with the fundamental right of access to documents under Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The interpretation of Regulation No 1049/2001 must be made in the light of the importance of that fundamental right and the obligation of transparency laid down in Article 15(3) TFEU.

7. Seventh plea in law: Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the absence of observance of the time-limit regime — Within the context of this plea, the applicant asserts that, by not handling the confirmatory application within the time-limits specified and by repeatedly extending the time-limits for no reason, the Commission infringed the mandatory time-limit regime.

( 1 ) 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).