27

Next, the following particulars, in any event, are not confidential or, as the case may be, are no longer confidential, and there is therefore nothing precluding their disclosure: – as regards the description of the document entitled ‘Meeting between Overgas and DG [Competition] on 13 October 2010’, the redacted items of information in the information report on pages 395 and 396 of the consecutive numbering is apparent, in particular, from paragraph 31(1), paragraphs 77, 80 et seq., 207, 208 and 215 et seq. of the Commission’s statement of objections, from footnote 84, recital 45(a), and recitals 100 to 103 of the public version of the contested decision, from paragraphs 3 and 6 to 8 of Overgas’ statement in intervention and paragraph 336 of the non-confidential version of the application vis-à-vis Overgas, and from paragraph 404 of the consolidated non-confidential version of the defence; – as regards the description of the document entitled ‘Meeting with Overgas Inc on 13/01/2011’, it must be noted that the redacted items of information on page 397 of the consecutive numbering appear, in particular, in paragraphs 77, 90 and 215 of the statement of objections, in recital 101(c) and recital 296 of the public version of the contested decision, and in paragraphs 6, 7 and 11 of Overgas’ statement in intervention; furthermore, the redacted item of information relating to the Bulgarian transmission network cannot be unknown to the applicants and refers, moreover, to a publicly available source; – as regards the description of the document entitled ‘Meeting with Overgas Inc on 17/03/2011’ and the particulars on pages 397 and 398 of the consecutive numbering, the following must be noted: – first, the steps that Overgas took vis-à-vis the Bulgarian regulator are apparent, in particular, from paragraphs 111, 112 and 118 of Bulgartransgaz’s response of 17 July 2015 to the statement of objections, from paragraph 2(a) of Bulgargaz’s response to that statement, and from recitals 104, 121 and 129 of the public version of the contested decision; – second, the other redacted items of information are disclosed and detailed in particular in paragraphs 77, 90 and 215 et seq. of the statement of objections and in recital 99 of the public version of the contested decision; furthermore, the name of the undertaking referred to in the second and fifth paragraphs on page 398 of the consecutive numbering is necessarily known to the applicants, since it was Bulgartransgaz which gave it access to its gas transmission network; – third, Overgas’ desire to compete with Bulgargaz is naturally at the centre of its complaint to the Commission; – fourth, Overgas’ intention to transform the market environment in Bulgaria is clearly apparent from paragraph 11 of its statement in intervention; – as regards the description of the document entitled ‘COMP/B1/39.849 – BEH Gas, Meeting with Overgas Inc on 15/12/2011, Minutes from the meeting (recorded on the Commission file on 21/12/2011)’ and the particulars on pages 399 and 400 of the consecutive numbering, the following must be noted: – first, the content of the first two paragraphs on page 399 of the consecutive numbering is known to the applicants, as evidenced by paragraph 35 of the non-confidential version of the application vis-à-vis Overgas, and is also addressed in paragraphs 23, 24 and 29 of Overgas’ statement in intervention; one of the particulars in question appears, moreover, in recital 14 of the public version of the contested decision; – second, the other information redacted on pages 399 and 400 of the consecutive numbering is apparent in particular from paragraphs 37, 38, 176 and 177 of the statement of objections, from paragraphs 88 to 90 of Bulgartransgaz’s response to that statement, and from recital 59, recital 101(e) and (g), and recitals 104, 121, 129 and 648 to 652 of the public version of the contested decision; – third, the information concerning the Bulgarian domestic network, its entry and exit points, and the figures referred to in those pages are necessarily known to the applicants; – as regards the description of the document entitled ‘Minutes of the meeting with Overgas’ of 17 June 2013, set out on pages 400 and 401 of the consecutive numbering, it must be noted that the redacted particulars cannot be unknown to the applicants, since they relate to Overgas’ discussions with them and to the contract concluded between Overgas and Bulgargaz on 31 January 2013; furthermore, those items of information appear in particular in paragraphs 135 and 139 and in footnote 21 of Bulgargaz’s response to the statement of objections, and in recitals 101, 110, 214 et seq., and 312 and 313 of the public version of the contested decision; – as regards the description of the document entitled ‘Minutes of the meeting with Overgas’ of 13 October 2015, set out on pages 401 and 402 of the consecutive numbering, it should be noted that the redacted particulars, which relate to Overgas’ suggestions to resolve the case with commitments, do not appear to be confidential, inasmuch as the Court does not see how they are connected to the serious consequences that could result from the disclosure of the detailed minutes (see paragraph 13 above) whose content the information report describes; in addition, in so far as the particulars in question should, a priori, be classified as commercially sensitive, the view must be taken that they are only of historical significance for the purposes of the case-law cited in paragraph 10 above; – as regards the description of the document entitled ‘Minutes of the meeting with Overgas’ of 17 March 2016, set out on page 402 of the consecutive numbering, it must be noted that, for the reasons given in the preceding indent, it does not appear necessary for Overgas’ new suggestions to resolve the case with commitments to remain confidential either; – as regards the description of the document entitled ‘Minutes of the meeting with Overgas’ of 20 October 2016, set out on page 403 of the consecutive numbering, it must be noted that the fact that Overgas submitted a complaint to the Commission against Bulgarian Energy Holding in 2009 is known to the applicants; furthermore, that fact is referred to in particular in paragraph 3 of Overgas’ statement in intervention.