ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SIXTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
9 November 2015(*)
(Confidentiality — No opposition)
In Case T‑574/14,
European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC), established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J. Buendía Sierra, L. Ortiz Blanco, Á. Givaja Sanz, and M. Araujo Boyd, lawyers,
applicant,
v
European Commission, represented by F. Castilla Contreras, F. Jimeno Fernández and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents,
defendant,
supported by
GlaxoSmithKline SA, established in Madrid (Spain),
and
GlaxoSmithKline plc, established in Brentford (United Kingdom),
represented initially by I. Forrester QC and A. Komninos, lawyer, and subsequently by A. Komninos,
interveners,
APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 3654 final of 27 May 2014 in Case No COMP/AT.36957 Glaxo Wellcome, adopted in accordance with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SIXTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT,
makes the following
Order
Procedure
1 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 4 August 2014, the applicant brought the present action.
2 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 7 January 2015, GlaxoSmithKline SA and GlaxoSmithKline plc applied for leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.
3 By document of 10 March 2015, the applicant lodged an application for confidential treatment of certain information in the application, the defence, the reply and the annexes to those documents, with regard to the interveners.
4 By order of 6 May 2015, GlaxoSmithKline SA and GlaxoSmithKline plc were granted leave to intervene.
5 By document of 12 June 2015, the interveners lodged their observations on the application for confidential treatment.
The application for confidential treatment
6 In the present case, the interveners, although they stated that it was not entirely clear to them whether the information at issue related to the applicant’s legitimate business interests or simply to statements of general interest that cause the latter some discomfort, stated that they were content to leave that matter to the assessment of the Court and did not object to the applicant’s application for confidential treatment.
7 It is appropriate to observe that an intervener’s opposition to the confidentiality sought must relate to specific matters which have been obscured in the procedural documents and state the reasons for which confidentiality with regard to those matters should be refused. Accordingly, an application for confidential treatment must be upheld in so far as it concerns matters which have not been disputed, or not disputed expressly and in detail, by the intervener (orders of 4 July 2013 in Telefónica de España and Telefónica Móviles España v Commission, T‑151/11, EU:T:2013:357, paragraph 14; 6 October 2011 in Vivendi v Commission, T‑432/10, EU:T:2011:580, paragraph 10; and 1 March 2007 in TVDanmark and Kanal 5 Denmark v Commission, T‑336/04, ECR, EU:T:2007:66, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited).
8 In the present case, since no specific matter which has been obscured in the procedural documents has been disputed expressly and in detail by the interveners, and they have, moreover, stated that they do not object to the application for confidential treatment, that application must be upheld.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SIXTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT
hereby orders:
1. The application for confidential treatment with regard to GlaxoSmithKline SA and GlaxoSmithKline plc is upheld.
2. The costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 9 November 2015.
E. Coulon | | S. Frimodt Nielsen |