Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62016TN0762

    Case T-762/16: Action brought on 31 October 2016 — ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v ECHA

    OJ C 14, 16.1.2017, p. 41–42 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    16.1.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 14/41

    Action brought on 31 October 2016 — ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v ECHA

    (Case T-762/16)

    (2017/C 014/50)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicants: ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg) and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Scheidmann and M. Kottmann, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

    Form of order sought

    The applicants claim that the Court should:

    —

    annul the ECHA’s decision of 26 September 2016 (reference ATD/52/2016);

    —

    alternatively, annul the ECHA's decision of 19 August 2016 (reference ATD/52/2016) to the extent that it rejects the applicants’ request for access to their file;

    —

    order the ECHA to bear the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

    —

    The applicants claim that the contested decision misapplies the abovementioned provision by erroneously finding that commercial interests would be undermined by disclosure and they further argue that the decision disregards overriding public interests.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(2), second indent, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

    —

    The applicants assert that the contested decision violates the abovementioned provision and that, contrary to that decision, the documents to which access is requested do pertain to the applicants’ file and are not, therefore, excluded from the scope of that provision.
    Top