EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/51

Action brought on 10 November 2017 — Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych v Commission

(Case T-750/17)

(2018/C 022/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Izba Gospodarcza Producentów i Operatorów Urządzeń Rozrywkowych (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: P. Hoffman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission of 29 August 2017 refusing access to the comments of the European Commission and the detailed opinion of the Republic of Malta, issued in the framework of notification procedure 2016/398/PL concerning an amendment of the Polish Act on games of chance;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging distortion of facts and infringement of Article 296 TFEU — It is argued that the decision is based on a number of factually incorrect statements, including the claims that the notified measure constituted a reply to the Commission’s letter of formal notice and that it was intended to show the steps taken by Poland to remedy a breach that was the subject of that letter, i.e. certain conditions on obtaining licenses for providing gambling services in Poland, even though, in reality, the said conditions were removed by Poland over two years ago, and even though the notified measure had nothing to do with the Commission’s letter of formal notice.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of recitals 3, 7 and 9, of Article 5(4) of Directive 2015/1535, (1) and of Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation 1049/2001 (2) — It is argued, in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-331/15 P France v Schlyter, (3) that by applying a general presumption and failing to demonstrate that disclosing the requested documents would specifically and actually undermine the infringement proceedings, the Commission infringed the principle of transparency inherent to Directive 2015/1535.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation 1049/2001 and of Article 296 TFEU — It is argued that, because of the duration of the infringement proceedings and its alleged failure to carry out any actual activities in their framework in a reasonable period, the Commission cannot base its refusal on the need to protect the purpose of those proceedings.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation 1049/2001 and of Article 296 TFEU and distortion of facts — It is argued that the requested documents are not covered by any general presumption. The Commission’s claim that an ‘inextricable link’ between the notification procedure and the infringement proceedings exists is factually incorrect and too vague. In any case it cannot prove that the documents are covered by a general presumption, because that depends solely on them forming part of the infringement file. The correct test of whether a document forms part of that file is whether the Commission acquired its possession in the framework of planned or pending infringement proceedings, i.e. whether it produced, received, commissioned, etc., the document in the framework of such proceedings or with a view to commencing them. This test, it is argued, is not satisfied here.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 and of Article 296 TFEU — The mere fact that the Commission intends to take Malta’s detailed opinion into account and utilise it in its dialogue with Poland in the framework of ongoing infringement proceedings cannot justify a refusal to disclose it.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 — It is argued that, given the duration of the infringement proceedings and the content, nature and context of the requested documents, their disclosure cannot in any way undermine the protection of those proceedings, thus rebutting the general presumption of non-disclosure.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001 and of Art. 296 TFEU It is argued that, in any case, the Commission should have disclosed the requested documents in part, i.e. after having removed references to issues concerning online gambling services which are the subject of infringement proceedings.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 and of Article 296 TFEU It is argued that an overriding public interest in knowing the Commission’s reaction to a notified measure that infringes fundamental EU freedoms and rights exists. The Commission, it is argued, failed to explain why it considers this interest less important than the interest in non-disclosure.

(1) Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2015 L 241, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EC) 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).

(3) Judgment of 7 September 2017, France v Schlyter (C-331/15 P, EU: C:2017:639).