Case T-187/06: Action brought on 18 July 2006 — Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office
Date: 2006-09-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Community Plant Variety Office, action for annulment (EU), crop production, plant propagation, protection of plant life

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/39

Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission breached
essential procedural requirements and rights of defence by not
giving full access to the file and by not giving access to non-
confidential versions of replies to statements of objections of
other parties in the Commission procedure.

(1) Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines

in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3)

(2) 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 2003 L 1, p. 1).

through legal misassessment of the content; according to the
applicant, the plant variety in respect of which application was
made is eligible for protection because it has the necessary
distinctiveness; Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No
2100/94 on account of insufficient examination of the content,
and of Article 75 of that regulation for infringement of the
right to a fair hearing.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Com-

munity plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1).

Action brought on 18 July 2006 — Ralf Schräder v Com-
munity Plant Variety Office

Action brought on 18 July 2006 — Arkema France v
Commission

(Case T-187/06)

(2006/C 212/68)

Language of the case: German

(Case T-189/06)

(2006/C 212/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant(s): Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany)
(repre-
sented by: T, Leidereiter, W.-A. Schmidt and I. Memmler,
lawyers)

Applicant: Arkema France (Puteaux, France) (represented by: A.
Winckler, lawyer, S. Sorinas, lawyer, and P. Geffriaud, lawyer)

Defendant(s): Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Amendment of the decision by the Board of Appeal of the
CPVO of 2 May 2006 (Az. 003/2004) so as to allow the
applicant's appeal against the defendant's decision No R
446 and to grant plant variety right in respect of plant
variety right application SUMCOL 01(No 2001/0905);

— In the alternative, annulment of the decision by the defen-
dant's Board of Appeal of 2 May 2006 (Az. A003/2004)
with a direction to the defendant to make a fresh decision
on that application in the light of the judgment;

— In the alternative, annulment of the decision of the defen-
dant's Board of Appeal of 2 May 2006 (Az. A003/2004);

— The CPVO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community plant variety right at
application No. 2001/0905).

issue: SUMCOL 01 (Variety

Decision of the Committee: Rejection of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Grounds: In particular, infringement of Article 62 in conjunc-
tion with Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (1)

Form of order sought

— on the basis of Article 230 EC, annul the decision adopted
by the Commission of 3 May 2006 in Case COMP/F/
38.620 in so far as it concerns Arkema;

— in the alternative, annul or reduce, on the basis of Artice
229 EC, the amount of the fine imposed upon it by that
decision;

— order the Commission pay to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment
of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 in
Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate, by
which the Commission found that the undertakings to which
the decision was addressed, which included the applicant,
infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agree-
ment by participating in a complex of agreements and
concerted practices consisting of the exchange of information
between competitors and agreements on prices and production
capacities and also of supervision of the implementation of
those agreements in the hydrogen peroxide and sodium perbo-
rate sector. In the alternative, it seeks the annulment or reduc-
tion of the amount of the fine imposed on it by that decision.