Case T-117/05: Action brought on 9 March 2005 by Andreas Rodenbröker and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-06-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, action for annulment (EU), environmental law, land and buildings, protected area

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/37

Action brought on 2 March 2005 by Akzo Nobel NV,
Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Interna-
tional BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akzo Nobel
Functional Chemicals BV against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-112/05)

(2005/C 143/70)

According to the applicants,
limited the individual liability of each company.

the Commission should have

The applicants finally submit a violation of the obligation to
state reasons. According to the applicants, the Commission
based its finding of joint and several liability of Akzo Nobel NV
on an erroneous reasoning and has not indicated why it has
established joint and several liability for one of the applicants
beyond the limit of 10 % of the turnover.

(Language of the case: English)

(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)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 March 2005 by Akzo Nobel NV,
established in Arnhem (The Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Neder-
land BV, established in Arnhem (The Netherlands), Akzo Nobel
Chemicals International BV, established in Amersfoort
(The
Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, established in Amers-
foort (The Netherlands) and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals
BV, established in Amersfoort (The Netherlands), represented
by C. R. A. Swaak and J. de Gou, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— to review the legality of

the contested decision under

Article 230 EC;

Action brought on 9 March 2005 by Andreas Roden-
bröker and Others against the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(Case T-117/05)

(2005/C 143/71)

— to annul the contested decision under Article 231 EC;

(Language of the case: German)

— to order the Commission to pay its own costs and those of

the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants contest
the Commission's Decision of 9
December 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC
and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/E-2/37.533-Choline Chloride),
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
choline chloride sector in the EEA and imposing a fine on the
applicants.

In support of their application, the applicants submit a viola-
tion of Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1)
the
Commission attributed the responsibility for the infringement
also to Akzo Nobel NV, the holding company of the Akzo
Nobel group. According to the applicants, Akzo Nobel NV did
not have a decisive influence over the commercial policy of its
subsidiaries.

in that

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 March 2005 by Andreas Roden-
bröker, Hövelhof (Germany), and Others, represented by H.
Glatzel, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 7 December 2004
adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, (1) the
list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic
biogeographical region as regards the listing of sites:

DE 4117-301 ‘Sennebäche’

DE 4118-301 ‘Senne mit Stapellager Senne’

DE 4118-401 ‘Vogelschutzgebiet Senne mit Teutoburger
Wald’ and

DE 4118-302 ‘Holter Wald’

The applicants furthermore submit that the amount of the fine
imposed jointly and severally to the applicants exceeded for
the turnover.
one of

the applicants the limit of 10 % of

insofar as areas belonging to the applicants, areas leased
(leasehold) by them or areas subject
to their planning
authority are affected;

C 143/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.6.2005

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are proprietors of sites which, under
the
contested decision, have been included on the Community list
of sites of Community importance on the basis of the presence
of the habitat types and species deemed worthy of protection
under the Flora-Fauna-Habitat Directive.

The applicants submit:

— that their property rights freely to exploit their land as they
wish have been significantly restricted by the contested
decision, and

— that this intervention is unlawful as it infringes procedural
requirements and involves misuse of power since the
purported habitat types and animal species deemed worthy
of protection are not to be found at all or, in any case, not
to the required degree of representativity or population size
as required under the criteria in Annex III to the Flora-
Fauna-Habitat Directive.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p.
7).

Action brought on 15 March 2005 by Borax Europe Ltd
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-121/05)

(2005/C 143/72)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 March 2005 by Borax Europe
Ltd., established in Guildford (United Kingdom), represented by
D. Vandermeersch and K. Nordlander, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision;

— order the Commission to bear the costs of the procedure.

recordings related to the preparation of the 30th adaptation to
technical progress of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June
1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and adminis-
trative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and
labelling of dangerous substances (1). More in particular, the
applicant's requested access to the audio recordings or tran-
scripts of the meeting of the specialised experts in the field of
reproductive toxicity on the classification of boric acid and
borates.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
defendant made a manifest error of assessment and infringed
and 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 (2).
Articles 4(1)(b)
According to the applicant, the defendant erred in stating that
access to the documents would undermine the integrity of the
specialised experts consulted and would expose them to
external pressure. The applicant claims furthermore that the
defendant erred in applying the exception relating to the
protection of the Commission's decision making process and in
deciding that there was no overriding public interest in disclo-
sure.

The applicant finally invokes a violation of the principle of
proportionality in failing to grant partial access to the audio
recordings.

(1) OJ English special edition: Series I Chapter 1967 p. 234
(2) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European
Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, p. 43)

Action brought on 16 March 2005 by Nicola Falcione
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-132/05)

(2005/C 143/73)

(Language of the case: French)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision of
the Commission to
refuse the applicant access to certain documents and tape

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 March 2005 by Nicola Falcione,
residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier
Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.