ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
24 October 2018 (*)
(Appeal – Intervention at first instance – Confidentiality)
In Case C-595/18 P,
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 21 September 2018,
The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., established in New York (United States), represented by A. Mangiaracina, avvocatessa, and by J. Koponen, advokat,
appellant,
the other parties to the proceedings being:
European Commission,
defendant at first instance,
supported by:
Prysmian SpA, established in Milan (Italy),
Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl, established in Milan,
represented by C. Tesauro, F. Russo and L. Armati, avvocati,
interveners at first instance,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,
having regard to the proposal of P.G. Xuereb, Judge Rapporteur,
after hearing the First Advocate General, M. Szpunar,
makes the following
Order
1 By its appeal, The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. asks the Court to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 July 2018, The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission (T‑419/14, ‘the judgment under appeal’, EU:T:2018:445), by which the General Court dismissed its action seeking, in particular, annulment, so far as concerns the appellant, of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables).
2 By document lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 1October 2018, The Goldman Sachs Group asked the Court to grant confidential treatment, vis-à-vis Prysmian SpA and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl, the interveners at first instance, to footnotes 3 and 78 of its appeal and to Table 2 set out in Annex I.2 to the appeal, identical to the confidential treatment granted by the General Court to the information contained in those footnotes and in that annex, which were set out in Table 3 of the application at first instance, at page 618 and in paragraphs 27 and 91 of Annex A.3 and in Annex A.3.20 to that application. The Goldman Sachs Group further asks the Court to grant confidential treatment, vis-à-vis the interveners at first instance, to Annex I.1 to the application which contains the confidential version of the judgment under appeal. To that end, The Goldman Sachs Group submits, in annex to its application for confidential treatment before the Court of Justice, a non‑confidential version of its appeal and of Annexes I.1 and I.2. thereto.
3 In that regard, it should be recalled that, by order of 14 September 2016, The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission (T-419/14, not published, EU:T:2016:711), the President of the Eighth Chamber of the General Court decided, on the basis of Article 144(5) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, that only a non‑confidential version of Table 3 of the application at first instance, of paragraphs 27 and 91 of Annex A.3 and of Annex A.3.20 to that application would be disclosed to the interveners at first instance.
4 Article 171(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice provides that the appeal is to be served on the other parties to the relevant case before the General Court. Moreover, in accordance with Article 172 of those rules, any party to the relevant case before the General Court having an interest in the appeal being allowed or dismissed may submit a response within two months after service on him of the appeal. It follows from those provisions that the appeal and the other procedural documents lodged before the Court of Justice are also to be served, in principle, on the parties given leave to intervene before the General Court.
5 However, it must be held, in a case such as this one, in which a party is requesting, in relation to a party that intervened before the General Court, confidential treatment in respect of material produced before the Court of Justice which has already been treated as confidential in relation to that same party in the proceedings at first instance, that the same confidential treatment must, in principle, be maintained for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court of Justice (order of the President of the Court of 13 December 2016, Lundbeck v Commission, C-591/16 P, not published, EU:C:2016:967, paragraph 5).
6 The same considerations apply, mutatis mutandis, in relation to the request for confidential treatment of the confidential version of the judgment under appeal. It is apparent from the file before the General Court, in Case T–419/14, that only a non‑confidential version of the judgment under appeal was notified to the interveners at first instance by the General Court.
7 It follows from the foregoing that the application lodged by The Goldman Sachs Group asking the Court to grant confidential treatment to footnotes 3 and 78 of its appeal and to Annex I.1 and Table 2 set out in Annex I.2 to the appeal, vis-à-vis the interveners at first instance must be upheld. Accordingly, only the non-confidential version of those documents shall be disclosed to those interveners.
On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:
1. Confidential treatment is granted, vis-à-vis Prysmian SpA and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl, to footnotes 3 and 78 of the appeal lodged by The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and to Annex I.1 and Table 2 set out in Annex I.2 to the appeal, only the non-confidential version of those documents having to be served, by the Registrar, on Prysmian and on Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi;
2. The costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 24 October 2018.
A. Calot Escobar | | K. Lenaerts |