This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TN0649
Case T-649/17: Action brought on 25 September 2017 — ViaSat v Commission
Case T-649/17: Action brought on 25 September 2017 — ViaSat v Commission
Case T-649/17: Action brought on 25 September 2017 — ViaSat v Commission
OJ C 402, 27.11.2017, p. 45–46
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
27.11.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 402/45 |
Action brought on 25 September 2017 — ViaSat v Commission
(Case T-649/17)
(2017/C 402/60)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: ViaSat, Inc. (Carlsbad, California, United States) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, L. Marco Perpiñà and S. Semey, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the European Commission’s implied negative decision of 13 July 2017 resulting from the failure by the Commission to reply within the prescribed time limit to the applicant’s confirmatory application of 31 May 2017 in relation to the access to documents request registered on 20 March 2017 under reference GestDem No 2017/1725; |
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
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 Commission breached its duty to state reasons under Article 296(2) TFEU.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to perform a concrete and individual examination of the requested document. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state reasons and erroneously applied the exception concerning the protection of commercial interests, as referred to in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to state reasons and erroneously applied the exception concerning the protection of investigations, as referred to in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erroneously determined there to be no overriding interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001. |
6. |
Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erroneously determined that partial access was not possible within the meaning of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001. |
(1) Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (OJ 2008 L 172, p. 15).
(2) 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).