CELEX: 62017TN0423
Language: en
Date: 2017-07-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-423/17: Action brought on 11 July 2017 — Nexans France and Nexans v. Commission

11.9.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 300/31
            
         Action brought on 11 July 2017 — Nexans France and Nexans v. Commission
   (Case T-423/17)
   (2017/C 300/39)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Nexans France (Courbevoie, France) and Nexans (Courbevoie) (represented by: M. Powell and A. Rogers, Solicitors, and G. Forwood, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Commission Decision C(2017) 3051 final of 2 May 2017 on a request for confidential treatment submitted by Nexans France and Nexans pursuant to Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case AT.39610 — Power Cables) in so far as it rejects the Applicants’ confidentiality claims as regards the material that they claim in Case T-449/14 was obtained illegally (so-called ‘Category I Claims’), and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the applicants’ 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 the Commission failed to state sufficient reasons, contrary to Article 296 TFEU, Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as Article 8(2) of Decision 2011/695/EU.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in assessing the applicants’ claim under Article 8(2) of Decision 2011/695: firstly, in finding that some of the contested material was already known beyond a limited number of persons; secondly, in failing to take due account of the principle of effective judicial protection; and thirdly, in finding that the applicants’ interests are not worthy of protection
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of the presumption of innocence, in view of the fact that the legality of the method by which the contested material was obtained is contested in the pending action Case T-449/14. Publication of the contested material would deprive any annulment in that case of its full effect.