Case C-202/06 P: Appeal brought on  4 May 2006  by Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV against the judgement of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on  23 February 2006  in Case T-282/02: Cementbouw Handel & Industrie B.V. v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), appeal, building materials, cement, dominant position, economic concentration

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/17

2. In the event that the answer to that question is no: should
Article 1(c) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October
1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down
by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States
concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities,
in the version of Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and of
the Council of 30 June 1997 amending
Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of
certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or adminis-
trative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of
television broadcasting activities, be interpreted to the effect
that
in
broadcasts or parts of broadcasts where the broadcaster
offers viewers the opportunity to participate in the broad-
caster's prize games by means of
immediately dialling
premium rate telephone numbers, and thus in return for
payment?

includes announcements

‘television advertising’

(1) OJ 298, p. 23.
(2) OJ 202, p. 60.

— if considered appropriate, refer the case back to the Court

of First Instance for judgment;

— order the Commission to pay the costs, including the costs

incurred by eventual intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance in its
judgement of 23 February 2006:

a. misinterpreted and misapplied Articles 1, 2 and 3(1) of the
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December
1989 on the control of concentrations between undertak-
ings, as amended by Regulation (EC) No. 1310/97 (the
Merger Regulation) (1) and:

b. violated the principle of proportionality and misinterpreted

and misapplied Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation;

which led it wrongly to dismiss the Appellant's application and
to uphold the decision of the Commission in so far as it
rejected the first set of commitments offered by the Appellant
and Haniel as insufficient.

Appeal brought on 4 May 2006 by Cementbouw Handel
& Industrie BV against the judgement of the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) deliv-
ered on 23 February 2006 in Case T-282/02: Cementbouw
Handel & Industrie B.V. v Commission of the European
Communities

(1) OJ L 180, p. 1.

(Case C-202/06 P)

(2006/C 178/27)

Language of the case: English

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank
Groningen (Netherlands) lodged on 2 May 2006 — Essent
Netwerk Noord BV v Aluminium Delfzijl BV, Essent
Netwerk Noord BV v 1. Saranne BV, and 2. BV Nederlands
Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor, and Aluminium Delfzijl
BV v State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Economic
Affairs)

Parties

Appellant: Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV (represented by:
W. Knibbeler, O. Brouwer and P.J. Kreijger, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

Referring court

(Case C-206/06)

(2006/C 178/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgement of the Court of First Instance of 23

February 2006 by which it:

a) dismissed the action brought by the Appellant

b) ordered the Appellant to pay the costs of the proceed-

ings

Rechtbank Groningen

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Essent Netwerk Noord B.V.

Defendant: Aluminium Delfzijl B.V.

Other parties: B.V. Nederlands Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor,
Saranne BV, BV Nederlands Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor,
State of the Netherlands (Ministry for Economic Affairs)