Case T-677/13: Action brought on 19 December 2013 — Axa Versicherung v Commission
Date: 2013-12-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, glass, motor vehicle industry, protection of privacy








C_2014071EN.01002203.xml










8.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/22






Action brought on 19 December 2013 — Axa Versicherung v Commission
(Case T-677/13)
(2014/C 71/42)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Axa Versicherung AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Bahr, S. Dethof and A. Malec, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested refusal;










—


in the alternative, annul the contested refusal in part;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges the Commission’s decision of 29 October 2013 concerning its second application for access to the Commission’s file in Case COMP/39.125 — Carglass.
In support of the action, the applicant puts forward five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law: infringement of the duty to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the requested documents under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)







—


The applicant submits, in this regard, that the Commission failed to comply with its duty under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the requested documents. Instead, it wrongfully categorised the documents concerned on the basis of formal criteria.














2.


Second plea in law: infringement of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) and of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 through the refusal of access to specific documents in the file.






—


By this plea, the applicant submits that the Commission unlawfully gave too broad an interpretation to the scope of the exceptions set out in Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. The applicant takes the view that commercial interests would not be undermined, within the terms of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, and that the Commission is not entitled to invoke the protection of investigations under the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.










—


In addition, it submits that the decision-making process would not be seriously undermined (second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001).










—


Furthermore, the Commission is wrong to deny that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the documents requested.














3.


Third plea in law: infringement of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 through the total refusal to grant access to specific documents






—


In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 by failing to grant even partial access to the relevant documents. The Commission failed to examine whether access could be granted to some of the documents, thereby infringing the requirements of Regulation No 1049/2001.














4.


Fourth plea in law: infringement of the first and third indents of Article 4(2), the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) and Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 through the refusal to grant access to the complete version of the contents page of the Commission’s file






—


In this context, the applicant claims that the Commission gave too broad an interpretation to the exceptions under Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 also in relation to the applicant’s request for access to the unredacted version of the contents page. The applicant takes the view that, in this regard too, commercial interests, under the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, and the protection of investigations, under the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, could not be undermined.










—


In addition, it submits that the privacy of the individual under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 would also not be undermined.














5.


Fifth plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons






—


The applicant submits, in this regard, that the Commission included merely general statements for refusal of the application for access to the file and failed to ensure the treatment of individual documents or of correctly established categories of documents, as it was legally required to do.










(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).