Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62011TN0211

    Case T-211/11: Action brought on 11 April 2011 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission

    OJ C 179, 18.6.2011, p. 18–18 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    18.6.2011   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 179/18


    Action brought on 11 April 2011 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission

    (Case T-211/11)

    2011/C 179/31

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicants: Timab Industries (Dinard, France) and Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) (Saint-Malo, France) (represented by: N. Lenoir, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicants claim that the Court should:

    annul the decision;

    order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The applicants seek the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 1 February 2011 refusing access to certain Commission documents relating to a procedure pursuant to Article 101 TFEU and Article 13 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, concerning a cartel on the European market in animal feed phosphates (Case COMP/38866).

    In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law:

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging error of law and a manifest error of assessment in relation to the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, (1) in so far as the documents applied for are not opinions but decisions in respect of which it has not been established that disclosure might seriously undermine the decision-making process.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging error of law and a manifest error of assessment in relation to the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in so far as the documents applied for do not contain any sensitive commercial information precluding, even partly, their disclosure.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging error of law and a manifest error of assessment in relation to the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in so far as the Commission contended that the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits would be undermined.


    (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).


    Top