Assignment of Mr Wahl and Mr Prek to Chambers
Date: 2006-10-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: General Court (EU), appointment of staff, member of the Court of Justice (EU), ordinary court of law

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/19

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Assignment of Mr Wahl and Mr Prek to Chambers

(2006/C 261/36)

At its plenary meeting on 9 October 2006, the Court of First
Instance decided, following the taking up of their duties by Mr
Wahl and Mr Prek, to amend as follows the decision of the
plenary meeting of 5 July 2006 on the assignment of Judges to
Chambers:

For the period from 9 October 2006 to 31 August 2007, the
following are assigned:

to the First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:

Mr Vesterdorf, President, Mr Cooke, Mr García-Valdecasas, Ms
Labucka and Mr Prek, Judges;

to the First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Cooke, President of the Chamber, Mr García-Valdecasas, Ms
Labucka and Mr Prek, Judges;

to the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five
Judges:

Mr Legal, President of the Chamber, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka,
Mr Vadapalas, Mr Moavero Milanesi and Mr Wahl, Judges;

to the Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Legal, President of the Chamber

a) Mr Vadapalas and Mr Wahl, Judges

b) Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka and Mr Moavero Milanesi, Judges

Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Total and Elf Aqui-
taine v Commission

(Case T-206/06)

(2006/C 261/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Total SA and Elf Aquitaine (Courbevoie, France)
(represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery, lawyer, and S. Thibault-
Liger, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— principally, annul Articles 1(c) and (d), 2(b), 3 and 4 of
Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006;

— in the alternative, amend Article 2(b) of Commission Deci-
sion C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006, in so far as it
imposes jointly and severally on Arkema SA, Altuglas Inter-
national
fine of
EUR 219.13125 million, for which Total SA and Elf Aqui-
taine are held jointly and severally liable for EUR 140.4
million and EUR 181.35 million respectively, and reduce
the amount of the fine in question to an appropriate level;

SA and Altumax Europe

SAS

a

— in any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicants seek the annulment in
part of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May
2006, by which the Commission found that the undertakings
to which the decision was addressed, which included the appli-
cants, infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agree-
ment (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) by participating
in a complex of agreements and concerted practices in the
methacrylates sector consisting in discussions on prices, the
conclusion,
implementation and monitoring of price agree-
ments, exchanges of commercially important information and
confidential
information on markets and/or undertakings as
well as the participation in regular meetings and other contacts
to facilitate the infringement. In the alternative, they seek the
reduction of
the fine imposed on their
subsidiary for which they are held jointly and severally liable.

the amount of

The main claim is based on nine pleas for annulment.

The first plea alleges an infringement of the rights of the
defence and the principle of the presumption of innocence.
The applicants submit that the contested decision was adopted
following an administrative procedure during which they could
not mount a useful defence to the extent that the Commission
did not discharge its burden of proof, thus ignoring the prin-
ciple of equality of arms.

In the second plea, they submit that the contested decision
ignored the obligation to state reasons, which is made even
greater, according to the applicants, by the alleged novelty of
the position adopted by the Commission. They point out that
the contested decision, in so far as it censures them for the
infringement at issue committed by their subsidiary, bases the
imputation of responsibility solely on the assumption of a
determining influence of the applicants on their subsidiary on
the ground that they hold virtually all of the subsidiary's share
capital, without any consideration of facts that might support
or refute this assumption. Furthermore, the applicants submit
that the contested decision contains a number of contradictions
that result from confusion between the concept of an under-
taking/economic entity responsible for an infringement and the
concept of a legal entity to which a decision is addressed. In
the context of this plea, the applicants also complain that the
Commission failed to respond sufficiently to their arguments
regarding the independence of their subsidiary.