EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013CN0399
Case C-399/13 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2013 by Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 June 2013 in Case T-93/11: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v European Commission
Case C-399/13 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2013 by Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 June 2013 in Case T-93/11: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v European Commission
Case C-399/13 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2013 by Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 June 2013 in Case T-93/11: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v European Commission
IO C 274, 21.9.2013, p. 13–13
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
IO C 274, 21.9.2013, p. 9–9
(HR)
21.9.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 274/13 |
Appeal brought on 11 July 2013 by Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 June 2013 in Case T-93/11: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v European Commission
(Case C-399/13 P)
2013/C 274/21
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany
Form of order sought
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
— |
uphold the appeal, set aside the judgment of 7 June 2013 of the General Court, and annul the Commission’s decision of 6 December 2010; |
— |
order the Commission to pay the Appellant’s costs for this appeal and for the action in annulment before the General Court. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Appellant submits that the General Court made three errors in law.
1. |
An error in law in holding the DG Trade Vademecum on Access to Documents (the Vademecum) was not intended to produce external effects; |
2. |
An error in law by disregarding the presumption that the documents were intended to be seen by a large number of people; |
3. |
An error in law in holding in the circumstances that there was no implicit waiver of confidentiality. |