Case T-125/03: Action brought on 11 April 2003 by Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd. and Akcros Chemicals Ltd. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-06-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), consultation of information, document, fact-finding mission, judicial investigation, offence

C 146/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2003

Action brought on 11 April 2003 by Akzo Nobel Chemi-
cals Ltd. and Akcros Chemicals Ltd. against the Com-
mission of the European Communities

(Case T-125/03)

(2003/C 146/75)

(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 11 April 2003 by Akzo Nobel
Chemicals Ltd., Hersham, United Kingdom, and Akcros
Chemicals Ltd., Hersham, United Kingdom, represented by
Mr C. Swaak, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— to review under Article 230 the legality of the Decision
in as far as it has been interpreted by the Commission
as legitimating and/or constituting the basis of
the
Commission’s action (which is not severable from the
Decision), of seizing and/or reviewing and/or reading
documents covered by legal professional privilege;

— to annul under Article 231 the Decision in as far as it has
been interpreted by the Commission as legitimating and/
or constituting the basis of the Commission’s action
(which is not severable from the Decision), of seizing
and/or reviewing and/or reading documents covered by
legal professional privilege;

— to require that the Commission, to comply with the
judgement annulling the Decision, return documents
covered by legal professional privilege and not to use
their contents in any way;

— to order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in

the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to Commission Decision C(2003)559/4 of 10 Febru-
ary 2003, the Commission conducted an on the spot investi-
gation on the premises of the applicants in Eccles, Manchester,
the
United Kingdom.
Commission reviewed, copied and seized several documents.

In the course of the investigation,

Some of these documents became the object of a disagreement
between the applicants and the Commission. According to the
applicants, the seizure of those documents violated the general
principle of legal professional privilege.

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the
Commission has committed an infringement of the Treaty, an
infringement of general principles of Community Law and has
violated Regulation 17/62 as interpreted by the European
Courts.

More specifically, the applicants claim that the Commission
has violated the principle of legal professional privilege by
violating the procedures relating to the application of the
principle as set out by the European Courts. Furthermore, the
applicant submits that the Commission violated the principle
of legal professional privilege by its unjustified and immediate
denial of its application during the on the spot investigation
and the seizure of some of
the
applicants submit that the Commission violated the applicants’
fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy.

the documents. Finally,

Action brought on 15 April 2003 by Paola Casini against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-132/03)

(2003/C 146/76)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 April 2003 by Paola Casini,
residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden,
avocat.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the list of officials promoted to Grade A 6 which
was published on 18 August 2002 to be annulled in so
far as the applicant’s name is not included on that list;

— order compensation to be paid to the applicant in respect
of the material and non-material damage which she has
suffered, provisionally estimated at a total of EUR 20 000,
in respect of which the material damage relates to
the financial readjustment of the applicant’s salary to
correspond to Grade A 6 from the date of publication of
the list of those promoted (increased by default interest
fixed at 7 % per annum);

— order the defendant to pay all of the costs.