On May 6, 2014, the European Union's General Court dismissed an appeal filed by Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España (UAHE)—a Spanish association of iron warehouses—against a decision of the European Commission to refuse access to documents exchanged with the Spanish competition authority, the Comisión Nacional de la Competencia (CNC), during an investigation, but required the Commission to pay all costs in the appeal because of the length of time the Commission took to issue its refusal.
The CNC fined UAHE in May 2010, alleging that it implemented a system of concerted billing and surcharging practices by sending recommendations to its members on how to charge its services to customers. During the course of its investigation, the CNC sent documents and other information to the Commission pursuant to the framework of cooperation set out in Article 11(4) of Regulation 1/2003. UAHE was fined again by the CNC in a separate but related investigation in 2012. In February 2013, UAHE made a request to the Commission to hand over the documents and correspondence exchanged with the CNC during its 2010 investigation. Following various exchanges and requests for extension, the Commission responded to UAHE's request in June 2013 stating that it could not provide a response, extending indefinitely the period for its responding to the requests. UAHE subsequently filed an appeal before the General Court alleging that the Commission denied access to the documents by failing to provide an answer within the timescale prescribed by EU transparency rules, and requested that the Court annul the Commission's decision to extend and require the Commission to disclose the documents.
After the appeal had been brought, the Commission sent a letter to UAHE explicitly stating that it was refusing access to the documents and the reasons for such refusal. Following that letter, the Commission informed the General Court that the purpose of the appeal was obsolete and there was no reason to proceed with the case. UAHE confirmed to the Court that it no longer intended to proceed with the appeal, but asked that the Commission pay all costs because the response on the request to access documents exceeded the timescale prescribed by the EU transparency rules. The General Court agreed, dismissing the appeal but ordering the Commission to pay the full costs of all parties in the appeal.
The order of the General Court is available here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
