Action brought on 21 September 2012 — Beninca v Commission (Case T-418/12)
Grade B
mapped from publisher markup. A grade says how a document's structure was obtained, not how reliable the law is.
Not the law itself: Notice
Address https://gelex.eu/eli/EU/notice/oj/C/2012/366/74@2012-09-21/en
Contents
2012/C 366/74Language of the case: English Applicant: Jürgen Beninca (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: C. Zschocke, lawyer) Defendant: European Commission The applicant claims that the Court should:
Annul Commission’s decision of 26 July 2012, implicitly refusing access to a document produced in the framework of merger proceedings (Case COMP/M.6166 — NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse); and
Order the defendant to pay the costs.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has not rendered a decision on the applicant’s request to access to a certain document within the time limit foreseen by Article 8(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. Pursuant to Article 8(3) of the Regulation, this constitutes an implicit negative and unreasoned decision and thereby constitutes a violation of relevant provisions on access to documents.
2. Second plea in law, alleging that none of the arguments raised by the Commission, in its preliminary assessment, justify denying the applicant access to the requested document.