CELEX: 62011TA0534
Language: en
Date: 2014-10-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-534/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2014  — Schenker v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Administrative file and final Commission decision concerning a cartel, non-confidential version of that decision — Refusal of access — Obligation to carry out a specific, individual examination — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations — Overriding public interest)

17.11.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 409/33
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2014 — Schenker v Commission
   (Case T-534/11) (1)
   
   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Administrative file and final Commission decision concerning a cartel, non-confidential version of that decision - Refusal of access - Obligation to carry out a specific, individual examination - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations - Overriding public interest))
   2014/C 409/47
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Schenker AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. von Hammerstein, B. Beckmann and C. D. Munding, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially M. Kellerbauer, C. ten Dam and P. Costa de Oliveira, then Mr. Kellerbauer, P. Costa de Oliveira and H. Leupold, Agents)
   
      Interveners in support of the defendant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Smeets, lawyer); Martinair Holland NV (Haarlemmermeer, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Wesseling and M. Bredenoord-Spoek, lawyers); Société Air France SA (Roissy-en-France, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann abd S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers); Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (Queensway, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: initially by B. Bär-Bouyssière, lawyer, M. Rees, Solicitor, D. Vaughan, QC, and R. Kreisberger, Barrister, then by M. Rees, D. Vaughan and R. Kreisberger); Air Canada (Québec, Canada) (represented by: J. Pheasant, Solicitor, and C. Wünschmann, lawyer); Lufthansa Cargo AG (Frankfurt-on-Main, Germany) and Swiss International Air Lines AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: initially S. Völcker and E. Arsenidou, then S. Völcker and J. Orologas, lawyers)
   
      Re:
   
   Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 3 August 2011 refusing to grant access to the administrative file of decision C (2010) 7694 final (Case COMP/39.258 — Air Cargo), to the full version of that decision and its non-confidential version.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Annuls Commission decision of 3 August 2011 refusing access to the administrative file of decision C (2010) 7694 final (Case COMP/39.258 — Air Cargo), to the full version of that decision and its non-confidential version, in that the Commission has refused access to the part of the non-confidential version of the decision at issue for which the undertakings concerned by it had not requested, or continued to not request, confidentiality;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Orders Schenker AG to bear its own costs and half of the costs incurred by the European Commission;
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Orders Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, Martinair Holland NV, Société Air France SA, Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd, Air Canada, Lufthansa Cargo AG and Swiss International Air Lines AG to bear their own costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.