This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/171/52
Case T-175/05: Action brought on 27 April 2005 by Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel AB, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB and Eka Chemicals AB against the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-175/05: Action brought on 27 April 2005 by Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel AB, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB and Eka Chemicals AB against the Commission of the European Communities
Case T-175/05: Action brought on 27 April 2005 by Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel AB, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB and Eka Chemicals AB against the Commission of the European Communities
ĠU C 171, 9.7.2005, p. 32–32
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 09/07/2005; Data tal-pubblikazzjoni
- Author:
- Il-Qorti tal-Prim’Istanza
- Form:
- Informazzjoni ġudizzjarja
- Link
- Link
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Link
|
9.7.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 171/32 |
Action brought on 27 April 2005 by Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel AB, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB and Eka Chemicals AB against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-175/05)
(2005/C 171/52)
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 27 April 2005 by Akzo Nobel NV, established in Arnhem (Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, established in Arnhem (Netherlands), Akzo Nobel AB, established in Stockholm (Sweden), Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, established in Amersfoort (Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV, established in Amersfoort (Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Base Chemicals AB, established in Skoghall (Sweden), and Eka Chemicals AB, established in Bohus (Sweden), represented by C. R. A. Swaak and A. Kayhko, lawyers.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
|
— |
review, under Article 230 EC, the legality of the Decision C(2004)4876 final of the Commission; |
|
— |
annul, under Article 231 EC, the contested decision; |
|
— |
or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine; |
|
— |
in both alternatives, order the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the applicants in these proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants contest the Commission's Decision of 19 January 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/E-1/37.773 — MCAA), 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 Monochloroacetic acid sector in the EEA and imposing a fine on the applicants.
In support of their application, the applicants submit a manifest error of appreciation and a violation of Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) in that the Commission wrongly attributed the responsibility for the infringement also to Akzo Nobel NV, the top holding company of the Akzo Nobel group, as well to Akzo Nobel AB. 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 on the applicants exceeded, for the Swedish companies in the MCAA business, the 10 % turnover limit set by Regulation 1/2003.
The applicants also contend a violation of the obligation to state reasons under Article 253.
In the alternative, the applicants submit that the Commission made various errors in relation to the calculation of the fine. According to the applicants, the Commission erred in classification of the companies when assessing the gravity of the infringement for the purposes of determining the basic amount of the fine, violated the principle of proportionality in applying an erroneous multiplier factor and the principle of equal treatment in misapplying the 1996 Leniency Notice (2).
(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).
(2) Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ C 207, 18/07/1996, p. 4).
