EN
C 165/38
Official Journal of the European Union
19.4.2022
4.
Fourth plea, alleging infringement of Regulation No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2013. — The applicant claims in that regard that an appropriate cost-benefit analysis was never carried out.
(1) (2)
Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).
Regulation (EU) 2021/1767 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2021 amending Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2021 L 356, p. 1).
Action brought on 17 February 2022 — Hahn Rechtsanwälte v Commission (Case T-87/22) (2022/C 165/46) Language of the case: German Parties Applicant: Hahn Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: K. Künstner, lawyer) Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul the European Commission’s decision C(2021) 9326 final of 7 December 2021; — order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law. 1.
First plea in law, alleging no grounds for refusal under Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) — The Commission failed to set out any commercial reasons worthy of protection with regard to the parties to cartel proceedings AT.40178 — Car Emissions, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and failed to carry out a case-by-case examination. — The Commission cannot rely on the protection of investigations, in view of the fact that this case concerns a closed cartel investigation with a decision that has become final and the Commission also failed to carry out a case-by-case examination. — The Commission relies on the general presumption of non-disclosure, despite the fact that the conditions provided for in the first and/or third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are not met which leads to an inadmissible distortion of the ‘rule-exception relationship’ of the right of access. 2.
Second plea in law, alleging overriding public interest in disclosure within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — The Commission erred in not finding that there was an overriding public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. — In the present case, a failure to have regard for interests of public welfare is evident, since the arrangements contrary to cartel law also concern the defeat devices of passenger cars and excessive nitrogen oxide emissions have a negative impact on interests of public welfare such as health, the environment and climate.