Case T-59/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Archer Daniels Midland v Commission (Competition — Cartels — Citric acid — Article 81 EC — Fine — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Leniency Notice — Principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity — Principle of proportionality — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence)
Date: 2006-12-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), chemical industry, dominant position, fine, infringement of EU law, organic acid

C 294/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.12.2006

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September
2006 — Dresdner Bank and Others v Commission

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September
2006 — Archer Daniels Midland v Commission

(Joined Cases T-44/02 OP, T-54/02 OP, T-56/02 OP, T-
60/02 OP and T-61(02 OP) (1)

(Case T-59/02) (1)

(Competition — Article 81 EC — Price-fixing agreement and
ways of charging for currency exchange services — Germany
— Evidence of the infringement — Application to set aside
judgments delivered by default)

(Competition — Cartels — Citric acid — Article 81 EC —
Fine — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Guidelines on
the method of setting fines — Leniency Notice — Principles
of
legal certainty and non-retroactivity — Principle of
proportionality — Equal treatment — Obligation to state
reasons — Rights of the defence)

(2006/C 294/88)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Dresdner Bank AG (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany)
(represented by: M. Hirsch and W. Bosch, lawyers); Bayerische
Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, formerly Vereins- und Westbank
AG (Munich, Germany)
(represented by:initially J. Schulte,
M. Ewen and A. Neus, and subsequently W. Knapp, T. Müller-
Ibold and C. Feddersen,
lawyers); Bayerische Hypo- und
initially
Vereinsbank
W. Knapp, T. Müller-Ibold and B. Bergmann, and subsequently
W. Knapp, T. Müller-Ibold and C. Feddersen,
lawyers); DVB
Bank AG, formerly Deutsche Verkehrsbank AG (Frankfurt-am-
Main) (represented by: M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer, lawyers);
and Commerzbank AG (Frankfurt-am-Main)
(represented by:
H. Satzky and B. Maassen, lawyers)

(represented

(Munich)

AG

by:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: T. Christoforou, A. Nijenhuis and M Schneider,
Agents)

Re:

Application by the Commission to set aside the judgments of
the Court of First Instance of 14 October 2004 in Cases T-
44/02 Dresdner Bank v Commission, not published in the ECR,
T-54/02 Vereins- und Westbank v Commission, not published in
the ECR, T-56/02 Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank v Commission
[2004] ECR II-3495, T-60/02 Deutsche Verkehrsbank v Commis-
sion, not published in the ECR, and T-61/02 Commerzbank v
Commission, not published in the ECR, delivered in default

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application to set aside the judgments by default;

2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.

(2006/C 294/89)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Archer Daniels Midland Co. (Decatur, Illinois, United
States) (represented by: C.O. Lenz, lawyer, L. Martin Alegi, M.
Garcia, and E. Batchelor, Solicitors)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: P. Oliver, Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of Article 1 of Commission Deci-
sion 2002/742/EC of 5 December 2001 relating to a
proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article
53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.604 — Citric
acid) (OJ 2002 L 239, p. 18) in so far as it finds that the appli-
cant infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agree-
ment by agreeing to restrict capacity in the market in question
and to designate a producer who was to lead price increases in
each national segment of the said market, and for the annul-
ment of Article 3 of the same decision in so far as it pertains to
the applicant and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the
fine imposed on it.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 2002/742/EC of 5
December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81
of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case
COMP/E-1/36.604 — Citric acid), in so far as, read in conjunc-
tion with recital 158, it finds that Archer Daniels Midland Co.
froze, restricted and closed down citric acid production capacity;

2. Annuls Article 1 of Decision 2002/742 in so far as, read in
that Archer Daniels
to ‘lead’ price

conjunction with recital 158,
Midland Co. designated a producer who was
increases in each national segment of the relevant market;

finds

it

3. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/43

4. Orders the Commission to pay one tenth of the costs incurred by

Archer Daniels Midland Co.;

5. Orders Archer Daniels Midland Co. to pay the remainder of its

own costs and the costs incurred by the Commission.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September
2006 — Werkgroep Commerciële Jachthavens Zuidelijke
Randmeren and Others v Commission of the European
Communities

(1) OJ C 144, 15.6.2002.

(Case T-117/04) (1)

(State aid — Aid awarded by the Netherlands authorities to
non-profit-making marinas — Action for annulment —
Admissibility)

(2006/C 294/91)

Language of the case: Dutch

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September
2006 — Haladjian Frères v Commission

(Case T-204/03) (1)

Parties

(Competition — Article 81 EC — Article 82 EC — Distribu-
tion of spare parts — Parallel imports — Complaint — Deci-
sion rejecting complaint)

(2006/C 294/90)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Vereniging Werkgroep Commerciële Jachthavens
Zuidelijke Randmeren (Zeewolde, Netherlands); Jachthaven Zijl
Zeewolde BV (Zeewolde); Maatschappij
tot exploitatie van
onroerende goederen Wolderwijd II BV (Zeewolde); Jachthaven
Strand-Horst BV (Ermelo, Netherlands); Recreatiegebied Erke-
Jachthaven- en Campingbedrijf
mederstrand vof
Netherlands);
Nieuwboer
BV
Jachthaven Naarden BV (Naarden, Netherlands),
(represented
by: T. Ottervanger, A. Bijleveld and A. van den Oord, lawyers)

(Bunschoten-Spakenburg,

(Zeewolde);

Applicant: Haladjian Frères (Sorgues, France) (represented by: N.
Coutrelis, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: H. van Vliet, A. Bouquet and A. Nijenhuis, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Whelan and O. Beynet, Agents, assisted by D.
Waelbroeck, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Nether-
lands, represented by H. Sevenster and M. de Grave, Agents,

Interveners in support of the defendant: Caterpillar, Inc. (Peoria, Illi-
nois, United States) and Caterpillar Group Services SA (Char-
leroi, Belgium) (represented by: initially N. Levy, Solicitor, and
S. Kingston, Barrister, then N. Levy and T. Graf, lawyer)

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 1
April 2003 rejecting the complaint alleging infringements of
Articles 81 EC and 82 EC lodged by Haladjian Frères SA
against Caterpillar, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs

incurred by the Commission and the interveners.

for

annulment

Application
Commission Decision
2004/114/EC of 29 October 2003 concerning aid measures
in favour of non-profit
implemented by the Netherlands
harbours for recreational crafts (OJ 2004 L 34, p. 63).

of

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs as well as those
incurred by the Commission. The Kingdom of the Netherlands
shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 200, 23.8.2003.

(1) OJ C 118, 30.4.2004.