Case T-102/02: Action brought on 5 April 2002 by EVC International N.V. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-06-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), economic concentration, hydrocarbon, merger control, oil industry, sale

C 156/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.6.2002

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 5 April 2002 by EVC International N.V.
against the Commission of the European Communities

— annul under Article 230 of the EC Treaty the Commission
Decision in case no. COMP/M.2533-BP/E.ON in its
entirety and/or insofar it concerns the market for the
supply of merchant ethylene;

(Case T-102/02)

(2002/C 156/61)

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

(Language of the case: English)

Pleas in law and main arguments

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 April 2002 by EVC International
N.V., represented by Mr Julian Ellison, Mr Mark Clough QC
and Mr Matthew Hall of Ashurst Morris Crisp, Brussels
(Belgium).

The applicant in the present case is a purchaser of merchant
ethylene on the ARG+ pipeline network in Belgium, the
Netherlands and western Germany.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant contests the Decision of
the Commission
declaring an operation where BP, together with E.ON, would
acquire joint control of Veba Oel under certain conditions
compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement.
These conditions were necessary since the operation gave rise
to substantial competition concerns on the ARG+ merchant
ethylene market. In particular, there was a risk of creating a
joint dominant position of BP/Veba Oel and Shell/DEA (case
no. COMP/M. 2389-Shell/DEA (1).

The decisions in the BP/E.ON case is closely related to the
decision in the Shell/DEA case. These cases were treated
similarly and the remedies imposed in each case are only
effective if the remedies in the other case are operative as well.
Therefore, the applicant puts forward the same arguments as
in Case T-99/02.

(1) Under the operation examined by the Commission in this case,
Deutsche Shell would acquire sole control of the undertaking
DEA Mineraloel. The decision in case nr COMP/M. 2389-Shell/
DEA is also contested by this Applicant in Case T-99/02.

— annul under Article 230 of the EC Treaty the Commission
Decision in case no. COMP/M.2533-BP/E.ON in its
entirety and/or insofar it concerns the market for the
supply of merchant ethylene;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case is a purchaser of merchant
ethylene outside the ARG+ pipeline network.

the Commission
The applicant contests the Decision of
declaring an operation where BP, together with E.ON, would
acquire joint control of Veba Oel under certain conditions
compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement.
These conditions were necessary since the operation gave rise
to substantial competition concerns on the ARG+ merchant
ethylene market. In particular, there was a risk of creating a
joint dominant position of BP/Veba Oel and Shell/DEA (case
no. COMP/M. 2389-Shell/DEA (1).

The Decision in the BP/E.ON case is closely related to the
decision in the Shell/DEA case. These cases were treated
similarly and the remedies imposed in each case are only
effective if the remedies in the other case are operative as well.

29.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 156/33

Therefore, the applicant puts forward the same pleas and
arguments as in Case T-100/02, which are again the same as
those put forward in Case T-99/02.

(1) Under the operation examined by the Commission in this case,
Deutsche Shell would acquire sole control of the undertaking
DEA Mineraloel. The decision in case no. COMP/M. 2389-Shell/
DEA is also contested by this applicant in Case T-100/02.

The contested Decision contains, according to the applicant,
several errors of assessment and errors in law. Firstly, the
Commission erred in concluding that the merchant supply of
cumene to one of
the applicant’s production sites does
not constitute a separate economic market. Secondly, the
Commission failed to consider whether a dominant position
would be created in this market and failed to conclude that
a dominant position had been created. Alternatively, the
Commission failed to define a wider relevant market for the
sale of cumene and failed to analyse the creation of a dominant
position in such a market.

Action brought on 5 April 2002 by Ineos Phenol GmbH
& Co KG against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-103/02)

(2002/C 156/62)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 April 2002 by Ineos Phenol
GmbH & Co KG, represented by Mr Julian Ellison, Mr Mark
Clough QC and Mr Matthew Hall of Ashurst Morris Crisp,
Brussels (Belgium).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul under Article 230 of the EC Treaty the Commission
Decision in case no. COMP/M.2533-BP/E.ON insofar as
it relates implicitly to the merchant supply of cumene;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant also puts forward a plea concerning the
infringement of an essential procedural requirement,
the
misuse of powers and the violation of the principle of sound
administration. According to the applicant, the Commission
should have requested information from third parties in
relation to the sale of cumene by BP and Veba Oel.

Finally, the applicant claims that there was a lack of reasoning
in the contested Decision since the Commission failed to
analyse the supply of merchant cumene by BP and Veba Oel
and failed to address the issues raised in the present application.

Action brought on 8 April 2002 by SFT Gondrand Frères
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-104/02)

(2002/C 156/63)

The applicant is a significant purchaser of a petrochemical
product called cumene from BP and Veba Oel AG.

(Language of the case: French)

The applicant contests the Decision of
the Commission
declaring an operation where BP, together with E.ON, would
acquire joint control of Veba Oel under certain conditions
compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement.
The grounds of the present application relate to the omission of
the Commission to consider, in this Decision, the competition
issues raised by the combination of BP and Veba Oel, so far as
their supply of merchant cumene is concerned.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on April 2002 by SFT Gondrand
Frères of Paris, represented by Mireille Famchon, lawyer, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.