CELEX: 62013TN0520
Language: en
Date: 2013-09-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-520/13: Action brought on 25 September 2013 — Philip Morris Benelux/Commission

23.11.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 344/65
            
         Action brought on 25 September 2013 — Philip Morris Benelux/Commission
   (Case T-520/13)
   2013/C 344/120
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Philip Morris Benelux (Antwerpen, Belgium) (represented by: K. Nordlander, lawyer, and P. Harrison, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Declare the application admissible;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision taken by the Secretary-General of the European Commission, dated 15 July 2013 (the ‘contested measure’), in which the Commission refused the applicant’s request for access to drafts of the Impact Assessment Report accompanying the Commission’s proposal for a revised Tobacco Products Directive; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s 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 that, by adopting the contested measure, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and breached Article 4(3) of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), by asserting and concluding that both the first and second subparagraphs of Article 4(3) of the such regulation (which are mutually exclusive) could apply simultaneously to the same set of facts at issue.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that, by adopting the contested measure, the Commission breached Article 4(3)(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by concluding that the narrow and limited exception set out in that subparagraph justified its refusal to grant disclosure of any of the requested documents.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that, by adopting the contested measure, the Commission breached Article 4(3)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, because the requested documents do not have the status of opinions and thus are not covered by the exception in Article 4(3)(2) of the regulation in question. Further, (i) disclosure of the requested documents would not undermine the Commission’s decision-making process; and (ii) there is an overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested documents.
            
         
      (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)