This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/171/40
Case T-151/05: Action brought on 14 April 2005 by Nederlandse Vakbond Varkenshouders and Others v Commission of the European Communities
Case T-151/05: Action brought on 14 April 2005 by Nederlandse Vakbond Varkenshouders and Others v Commission of the European Communities
Case T-151/05: Action brought on 14 April 2005 by Nederlandse Vakbond Varkenshouders and Others v Commission of the European Communities
IO C 171, 9.7.2005, p. 24–24
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
9.7.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 171/24 |
Action brought on 14 April 2005 by Nederlandse Vakbond Varkenshouders and Others v Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-151/05)
(2005/C 171/40)
Language of the case: Dutch
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought on 14 April 2005 by the Nederlandse Vakbond Varkenshouders (Netherlands Association of pig breeders), established in Lunteren (Netherlands); Marius Schep, residing in Lopik (Netherlands) and the Nederlandse Bond van Handelaren in Vee (Netherlands association of livestock dealers), established in the Hague (Netherlands), represented by Johannes Kneppelhout and Monique Charlotte van der Kaden.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
|
— |
Declare the application for annulment admissible and well founded; |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants seek annulment of the Commission Decision of 21 December 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.3605 — SOVION/HMG).
The applicants submit that the Commission has infringed Articles 2, 6 and 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1) (the EC Merger Regulation). In the applicants' view, the Commission unlawfully decided that the proposed concentration gave rise to no problems for competition on the market for the purchase of live pigs and sows for slaughter and that no dominant position arose on the relevant market. In that connection the applicants claim that in certain recitals to the contested decision the Commission applied a distorted definition of the relevant product market by including the market for sows in the market for pigs. In the applicants' view the Commission defined the geographical market incorrectly.
The applicants also claim an infringement of the duty to provide a statement of reasons and of due care. According to the applicants the Commission gave the applicants insufficient opportunity to clarify their views and disregarded the information supplied by them.
(1) OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1.