Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

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

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.
Top