EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0902
Case T-902/16: Action brought on 21 December 2016 — HeidelbergCement v Commission
Case T-902/16: Action brought on 21 December 2016 — HeidelbergCement v Commission
Case T-902/16: Action brought on 21 December 2016 — HeidelbergCement v Commission
IO C 53, 20.2.2017, p. 40–41
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
20.2.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 53/40 |
Action brought on 21 December 2016 — HeidelbergCement v Commission
(Case T-902/16)
(2017/C 053/49)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: HeidelbergCement AG (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz, P. Pichler and H. Weiß, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the decision of the European Commission No (2016)6591 final of 10 October 2016 to initiate proceedings pursuant to article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) in Case M. 7878 — HeidelbergerCement/Schwenk/Cemex Hungary/Cemex Croatia concerning the envisaged acquisition by Duna-Dráva Cement Kft. of 100 % of the shares in Cemex Hratska dd. and Cemex Hungária Építőanyagok Kft.; and |
|
— |
in any event, order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
According to the applicant, the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by considering the applicant and Schwenk Zement KG — rather than Duna-Dráva Cement Kft., a full-function joint venture in which the applicant and Schwenk Zement KG each hold respectively a controlling interest of 50 %, as ‘undertakings concerned’ and thus concluded that the transaction has a ‘Union dimension’ within the meaning of article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. According to the applicant, in reality, the European Commission lacks the competence for adopting the contested decision and reviewing the transaction on the basis of the Council Regulation (EC) 139/2004 and the contested decision therefore violates article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) 139/2004 and the underlying principles of legal certainty and subsidiarity.
First, the applicant puts forward that the European Commission erred in law and committed a manifest error of assessment in relying on paragraph 147 of the Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice (2) in order to qualify the applicant and SchwenkZement KG, rather than Duna-Dráva Cement Kft., as the ‘undertakings concerned’;
Second, the applicant puts forward that paragraph 147 of the Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice would be unlawful if it could indeed be applied to the case at hand due to a violation of article 1 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and the underlying primary law principles of legal certainty and subsidiarity.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ, L 24, p. 1.
(2) Commission Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ 2008, C 95, p. 1.