Case T-112/05: Action brought on 2 March 2005 by Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-06-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), chemical industry, unlawful agreement

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;