CELEX: 62017CN0666
Language: en
Date: 2017-11-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-666/17 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2017 by AlzChem AG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2017 in Case T-451/15: AlzChem AG v Commission

26.3.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 112/8
            
         Appeal brought on 27 November 2017 by AlzChem AG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2017 in Case T-451/15: AlzChem AG v Commission
   (Case C-666/17 P)
   (2018/C 112/12)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: AlzChem AG (represented by: A. Borsos, avocat, J. A. Guerrero Pérez, abogado)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               declare the application admissible and well founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the judgment;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
               1)
            
            
               First Plea: Error in law and manifest error of assessment regarding the application of a general presumption in relation to the exception for the protection of the purpose of EU investigations
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The Commission’s error in law regarding the application of the general presumptions in relation to the application of exception to requests for access to specific and identified pre-existing documents;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           The Commission’s error in law regarding the protection of the purpose of ongoing investigations in relation to requests for access to specific and identified pre-existing documents;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           The Commission’s error in law and manifest error of assessment regarding the assessment of the overriding public interest of ensuring an effective judicial review (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights); and
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           The Commission’s error in law regarding the application of the fundamental right of access to documents (Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights).
                        
                     
         
               2)
            
            
               Second Plea: Failure to state reasons regarding the refusal of access to a non-confidential version of an on-site access to the documents.