|
11.6.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 143/37 |
Action brought on 2 March 2005 by Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-112/05)
(2005/C 143/70)
Language of the case: English
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 March 2005 by Akzo Nobel NV, established in Arnhem (The Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, established in Arnhem (The Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, established in Amersfoort (The Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, established in Amersfoort (The Netherlands) and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV, established in Amersfoort (The Netherlands), represented by C. R. A. Swaak and J. de Gou, lawyers.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
|
— |
to review the legality of the contested decision under Article 230 EC; |
|
— |
to annul the contested decision under Article 231 EC; |
|
— |
to order the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the applicants. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants contest the Commission's Decision of 9 December 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/E-2/37.533-Choline Chloride), finding that the applicants were involved in a complex of agreements and concerted practices consisting of price fixing, market sharing and agreed actions against competitors in the choline chloride sector in the EEA and imposing a fine on the applicants.
In support of their application, the applicants submit a violation of Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) in that the Commission attributed the responsibility for the infringement also to Akzo Nobel NV, the holding company of the Akzo Nobel group. According to the applicants, Akzo Nobel NV did not have a decisive influence over the commercial policy of its subsidiaries.
The applicants furthermore submit that the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally to the applicants exceeded for one of the applicants the limit of 10 % of the turnover. According to the applicants, the Commission should have limited the individual liability of each company.
The applicants finally submit a violation of the obligation to state reasons. According to the applicants, the Commission based its finding of joint and several liability of Akzo Nobel NV on an erroneous reasoning and has not indicated why it has established joint and several liability for one of the applicants beyond the limit of 10 % of the turnover.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, p. 1)