CELEX: 62012TN0462
Language: en
Date: 2012-10-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-462/12: Action brought on 19 October 2012 — Pilkington Group v Commission

8.12.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 379/30
            
         Action brought on 19 October 2012 — Pilkington Group v Commission
   (Case T-462/12)
   2012/C 379/51
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Pilkington Group Ltd (St Helens, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Scott, S. Wisking and K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitors)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Order the annulment pursuant to Article 263 TFEU of the European Commission Decision of 6 August 2012 rejecting a request for confidential treatment (Decision C(2012) 5718 final) (Case COMP/39.125 — Carglass) (and in particular Article 4 thereof); and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order that the defendant pay the applicant's costs in these proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed Article 296 TFEU, Article 8 of the Hearing Officer Mandate (1) and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of good administration by failing to examine adequately the applicant's detailed arguments and providing inadequate reasons for its approach.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed EU law (in particular Article 339 TFEU, Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2), Article 8 of the Hearing Officer Mandate) by deciding to publish information which, on application of the correct legal test and assessment, ought to be considered as falling within the obligation on professional secrecy, as the Commission:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           failed to apply the correct legal test,
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           erred in its assessment of whether the information in question constitutes business secrets or other confidential information;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           used irrelevant criteria such as that the information constitutes material facts of the alleged infringement; and
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           erred in its assessment of whether there are overriding reasons permitting disclosure, in particular in light of the Commission's own approach of refusing access to documents containing similar information and the case law of the European Courts, which creates a general presumption that such information is confidential and cannot be disclosed to the public.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed EU law by violating the principle of equal treatment by adopting an unfavourable approach in the case of the applicant as compared to undertakings in a similar position in other recent or contemporaneous proceedings.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed EU law by violating the principle of legitimate expectations in that it has breached the applicant's legitimate expectation to have confidential information obtained by or provided to the Commission in the context of competition proceedings protected from disclosure.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed EU law (in particular Article 339 TFEU, Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, Article 8 of the Hearing Officer Mandate) by deciding to publish information which is capable of identifying specific individuals.
            
         
               6.
            
            
               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed the principle of proportionality and Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (3) (in particular Article 4(2) thereof) by adopting a disproportionate means of disclosing the information in question and circumventing the principles and procedures of the said regulation.
            
         
      (1)  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, (OJ 2011 L 275, p. 29)
   
      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 001, p. 1)
   
      (3)  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)