Action brought on 6 October 2008 - CDC Hydrogene Peroxide v Commission
(Case T-437/08)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: CDC Hydrogene Peroxide Cartel Damage Claims (CDC Hydrogene Peroxide) (represented by: R. Wirtz, lawyer)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
declare that decision SG.E3/MM/psi D(2008) 6658 of the Commission of 8 August 2008 is void pursuant to Article 231(1) EC;
order the defendant to pay the applicant's necessary costs under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, which brings actions for compensation of undertakings injured by the European hydrogen peroxide cartel, challenges the decision of the Commission of 8 August 2008, by which its application on the basis of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001
1 for full access to the statement of contents of the case-file in Case COMP/F/38.620 -
Hydrogen peroxide and perborate was refused.
In support of its claims the applicant complains of the infringement of the first and third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the exceptions contained in those provisions were misinterpreted or misapplied.
The applicant relies on four pleas in law in that regard.
First, the decision infringes the principle of strict interpretation and application of the exception. The Commission has not demonstrated any actual foreseeable and not merely hypothetical risk of detriment to the interests protected.
Secondly, the contested decision is inconsistent with the principles of law of effective compensation for infringements of EC competition law, as the interest of the injured parties in the details of the infringement is to be valued more highly than the interest of the undertakings in not disclosing to the public the details of the infringement alleged by the Commission and the scope of its cooperation with the Commission within the framework of the leniency notice.
Thirdly, the contested decision is not justified by the exception in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 concerning the protection of commercial interests.
Fourthly, the contested decision is not justified by the exception in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections and investigations.
____________1 - 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 L 145 of 31.5.2001, p.43).