JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission (Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Order) [2019] EUECJ C-1/19P(R)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

(Application for interim relief — Appeal — Articles 278 and 279 TFEU — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Application for interim measures — Article 160(7) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice)

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of a measure and for other interim measures under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, made on 3 January 2019,

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, established in Columbus (United States),

represented by M. Lester QC, D. Piccinin and D. Heaton, Barristers, and by B. Tormey, N. Frey, N. French and D. Das, Solicitors,

1 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 3 January 2019, JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank,National AssociationandJ.P. Morgan Services LLP requested the Court to set aside the order of the President of the General Court of the European Union of 25 October 2018, JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission (T‑420/18 R, not published, ‘the order under appeal’, EU:T:2018:724), by which the General Court dismissed their application for, first, suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2018) 2745 final of 27 April 2018 on objections to the disclosure of information by its publication raised by JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association and J.P. Morgan Services LLP, in accordance with Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ 2011 L 275, p. 29) (Case AT.39914 Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD), ‘the decision at issue’), and, second, an order requiring the European Commission to refrain from publishing its Decision C(2016) 8530 final of 7 December 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Case AT.39914 Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD), ‘the EIRD decision’).

2 By a separate document lodged at the Court Registry on the same day, the appellants submitted the present application for interim relief, by which they claim, in essence, that the Vice-President of the Court should, pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU and Article 160(7) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice:

– suspend the operation of the order under appeal and the decision at issue in its entirety, or, alternatively, in part, with the consequence that no version of the EIRD decision can be published (or, in the alternative, that only a more redacted version can be published), until an order terminating the interlocutory proceedings has been made;

– suspend the operation of the order under appeal and the decision at issue in its entirety, or, alternatively, in part, with the consequence that no version of the EIRD decision can be published (or, in the alternative, that only a more redacted version can be published), until the General Court has ruled on the action for annulment brought in Case T‑420/18; and

3 Under Article 160(7) of the Rules of Procedure, the judge hearing applications for interim relief may grant the application even before the observations of the opposite party have been submitted. This decision may be varied or cancelled even without any application being made by any party.

4 According to the case-law, in particular where it is desirable in the interests of the proper administration of justice that the interlocutory proceedings should not be deprived of all of their substance and effect, Article 160(7) of the Rules of Procedure permits the judge hearing an application for interim measures to adopt such measures, as a precautionary measure, until either an order has been made terminating those interlocutory proceedings or until the main proceedings are terminated, if this should take place first (order of the Vice-President of the Court of 19 October 2018, Commission v Poland, C‑619/18 R, not published, EU:C:2018:852, paragraph 13 and the case-law cited).

5 When assessing the need for such an order, the judge hearing the application for interim relief must examine the circumstances of the specific case at hand (order of the Vice-President of the Court of 19 October 2018, Commission v Poland, C‑619/18 R, not published, EU:C:2018:852, paragraph 14 and the case-law cited).

6 In the present case, the decision at issue, the operation of which was not stayed by the order under appeal, essentially authorises the Commission to publish a non-confidential version of the EIRD decision containing information for which the appellants had requested confidential treatment under Article 8(2) of Decision 2011/695.

7 In those circumstances, in order to avoid a situation in which the interlocutory proceedings are deprived of all of their substance and effect, the Vice-President of the Court takes the view, even before the observations of the opposite party have been submitted, that it is in the interests of the proper administration of justice that the operation of the decision at issue be suspended and that the Commission refrain from publishing a non-confidential version of the EIRD decision containing information for which the appellants had requested confidential treatment under Article 8 of Decision 2011/695 until the adoption of an order terminating the present interlocutory proceedings or until the adoption of an order ruling on the appeal in Case C‑1/19 P(R), whichever is the earlier. Having regard to the foregoing considerations, it is not necessary to suspend the operation of the order under appeal.

1. Until the adoption of an order terminating the present interlocutory proceedings or until the adoption of an order ruling on the appeal in Case C‑1/19 P(R), whichever is the earlier,

– the operation of Commission Decision C(2018) 2745 final of 27 April 2018 on objections to the disclosure of information by its publication raised by JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association and J.P. Morgan Services LLP, in accordance with Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case AT.39914 Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD), is suspended, and

– the European Commission shall refrain from publishing a non-confidential version of its Decision C(2016) 8530 final of 7 December 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Case AT.39914 Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (EIRD)) containing information for which JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association and J.P. Morgan Services LLP had requested confidential treatment under Article 8 of Decision 2011/695.

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> JPMorgan Chase and Others v Commission (Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Order) [2019] EUECJ C-1/19P(R)_CO (16 January 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2019/C119P(R)_CO.html Cite as: EU:C:2019:41, [2019] EUECJ C-1/19P(R)_CO, ECLI:EU:C:2019:41

Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)