CELEX: 62013CN0399
Language: en
Date: 2013-07-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-399/13 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2013 by Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 June 2013 in Case T-93/11: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v European Commission

21.9.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 274/13
            
         Appeal brought on 11 July 2013 by Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 June 2013 in Case T-93/11: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v European Commission
   (Case C-399/13 P)
   2013/C 274/21
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The Appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               uphold the appeal, set aside the judgment of 7 June 2013 of the General Court, and annul the Commission’s decision of 6 December 2010;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the Appellant’s costs for this appeal and for the action in annulment before the General Court.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The Appellant submits that the General Court made three errors in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               An error in law in holding the DG Trade Vademecum on Access to Documents (the Vademecum) was not intended to produce external effects;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               An error in law by disregarding the presumption that the documents were intended to be seen by a large number of people;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               An error in law in holding in the circumstances that there was no implicit waiver of confidentiality.