Case T-330/01: Action brought on 19 December 2001 by Akzo Nobel N.V. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-03-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, action for annulment (EU), chemical industry, economic concentration, economic sanctions

C 68/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.3.2002

Action brought on 19 December 2001 by Akzo Nobel
N.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-330/01)

(2002/C 68/28)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Finally, given the significance of the applicant in the market,
the multiplication factor applied as regards the amount of the
fine infringes Articles 81 and 83 of the EC Treaty and
Article 15 of Regulation No 17/62 (1), inasmuch as, according
to the applicant, the Commission may only take into account
the seriousness and duration of the breach and may not take
account of the economic weight attaching to the undertaking
concerned. Moreover, an insufficient statement of reasons has
been given for that multiplication factor.

(1) Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles [81]
and [82] of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962,
p. 87).

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 December 2001 by Akzo Nobel
N.V., established at Arnhem (Netherlands), represented by
Martijn van Empel and Christoforus Raymundus Albertus
Swaak, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1)

annul Articles 3 and 4 of the Commission’s decision of
2 October 2001 in so far as it concerns the applicant,
alternatively annul Article 3 of the decision in conjunction
with point 388 in the preamble thereto, by declaring void
the multiplication factor of 2,5 in so far as this is applied
to the applicant;

(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is the parent company of Akzo Nobel Chemicals
B.V., which was in turn involved, through Glucona N.V., in a
cartel relating to the sale of sodium gluconate. In the contested
decision, the applicant was ordered to pay a fine pursuant to
Article 81 of the EC Treaty.

According to the applicant, the Commission has infringed the
principle of proportionality and Article 253 of the EC Treaty
by failing, when fixing the fine, to take sufficient account of
the limited size of the product market and the significance of
each undertaking in that market.

The applicant
further pleads infringement of Articles 81
and 253 of the EC Treaty. According to the applicant, the
Commission has not shown that the applicant can be held
liable for the offences committed by Glucona B.V. and the
applicant’s subsidiary company.

Action brought on 28 December 2001 by Karl L. Meyer
against Council of the European Union and Commission
of the European Communities

(Case T-333/01)

(2002/C 68/29)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of
the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 28 December 2001 by Karl L. Meyer, residing in Uturoa
(French Polynesia), represented by Jean-Dominique des Arcis,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Commission of the European Communi-
ties committed an administrative fault characterised by
serious failure to act and by the unlawful failure to fulfil
its obligations to implement and monitor the proper
application in French Polynesia of decisions on the
association of
the overseas countries and territories
(PTOMs);

— declare that the European Commission committed an
administrative fault by providing false information to the
European Parliament regarding the origin of the funds
borrowed from the SOCREDO development bank and
the applicant’s rights under decisions on the association
of the PTOMs, which have direct effect;

— declare that such failures have caused damage to the
applicant which the European Council and the European
Commission must make good;