CELEX: 62017TN0168
Language: en
Date: 2017-03-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-168/17: Action brought on 16 March 2017 — CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs v Commission

15.5.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 151/40
            
         Action brought on 16 March 2017 — CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs v Commission
   (Case T-168/17)
   (2017/C 151/51)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetriebs GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: A. Schuster, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               uphold the action for annulment and annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C (2017) 249 final of 13 January 2017 concerning the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1)
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               Fist plea in law: infringement of essential procedural requirements, in particular a failure to state reasons
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law: infringement of the law of the Treaties
               The applicant submits that the exceptions provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and applied by the Commission are unlawful, since they conflict with higher-ranking primary law, in particular with Articles 42 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
               Furthermore, the primacy of application of higher-ranking primary law over conflicting secondary law also applies in EU law, with the result that, for this reason, too, the Commission should not have applied the exceptions provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
            
         
      (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).