CJEU Case T-225/24 / Judgment

Huhtamaki Holding Sàrl v European Commission
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Typ
Decision
Decision date
03/09/2025
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:T:2025:830
  • CJEU Case T-225/24 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to State aid procedures – Advance tax agreements – Refusal of access – Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party – Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits – General presumption of confidentiality – Not irrebuttable – Overriding public interest – Principle of sound administration – Obligation to state reasons

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds,

    THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber)

    hereby:

    1. Dismisses the action;
    2. orders Huhtamaki Holding Sàrl to pay the costs.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    78. Access to the requested documents would allow the applicant to exercise its rights of defence as protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). It also allows the Commission to carry out a more comprehensive assessment, with knowledge of further elements, enabling it to adopt a more balanced position on whether the selectivity requirement was met.

    ...

    115. As regards the rights of the defence and the alleged infringement of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter, the Commission erred, in particular, in considering, in the contested decision, that the applicant had had the opportunity to comment following the decision to open the formal investigation procedure.

    116. As regards the principles of transparency and proportionality, the Commission is bound by the first of those principles, which is enshrined in Article 15(3) TFEU and protected by Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter. As a general principle of law, it constitutes an overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of documents allegedly covered by the general presumption of confidentiality. The principle of transparency therefore protects the need for undertakings to understand the type of data analysed by the Commission in the context of a State aid investigation. In the present case, granting access to the requested documents would contribute to the transparency of the Commission’s State aid policy, since those documents reflect the very elements of such a policy. The principle of transparency is therefore capable of rebutting the general presumption of confidentiality and, contrary to what is asserted by the Commission, it is not an individual interest.

    ...

    121. In that context, as regards the alleged infringement of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter, it should be noted that the purpose of Regulation No 1049/2001 is to settle questions relating to public access to documents held by the EU institutions and not to determine whether interested parties have a right guaranteed by those articles of the Charter to have access to specific evidence submitted to the file of a procedure for reviewing State aid or whether such access would be useful to the Commission in the exercise of its investigative power.

    ...

    130. The applicant alleges a failure to observe the principle of sound administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter in that the Commission failed to comply with the time limits laid down in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, did not give reasons for the extension of the time limit for adopting its decision and even remained unjustifiably silent between 13 October 2023 and 19 February 2024, without informing the applicant of the delay. As a result of exceeding the time limit, the applicant had to bear unnecessary costs incurred as a result of taking action against the initial implied rejection decision. Consequently, such costs should in any event be borne by the Commission.

    ...

    144. The manifest lack of reasoning in the contested decision gives rise to a breach of the applicant’s right under Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter and Article 296 TFEU.

    ...

    146. It must be recalled that the obligation to state reasons is a general principle of EU law, enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and in Article 41(1) of the Charter, under which any legal act adopted by the EU institutions must state the reasons on which it is based. That obligation means that the EU institutions must disclose clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the author of the measure in such a way as to enable, on the one hand, interested parties to ascertain the reasons for the measure adopted in order to enable them to protect their rights, and, on the other hand, the court having jurisdiction to exercise its power of review (see judgment of 2 October 2024, Soares v Commission, T‑606/23, not published, EU:T:2024:667, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited).

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)