Case C-510/06 P: Appeal brought on 15 December 2006 by Archer Daniels Midland Co. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2006 in Case T-329/01: Archer Daniels Midland Company v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), appeal, chemical industry, dominant position, economic concentration, fine

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/15

Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v Republic of Malta

Form of order sought

(Case C-508/06)

(2007/C 56/26)

— Set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
Instance (CFI) on 27 September 2006 in Case T-330/01;

— Annul Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2001)

2931 final of 2 October 2001;

Language of the case: English

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of

the present

appeal.

Parties

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Konstantinidis and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta

The applicant claim that the Court should:

— declare that the Maltese authorities have failed to fulfil their
obligations
of Council Directive
96/59/EC (1) as read in conjunction with Article 54 of the
2003 Act of Accession.

under Article

11

— order Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time limit within which the Republic of Malta was required
to have communicated the plans and outlines under article 11
of the directive expired on 1 May 2004.

(1) OJ L 243, p. 31.

Appeal brought on 15 December 2006 by Akzo Nobel NV
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber) of 27 September 2006 in Case T-330/01 Akzo
Nobel NV v Commission

(Case C-509/06 P)

(2007/C 56/27)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Akzo Nobel NV (represented by: C. Swaak, advocaat)

(1) The CFI appears to have erred in law in finding that liability
for an infringement committed by a Community under-
taking can be attributed not only to its parent companies
but also — and primarily — to the head holding company
which indirectly holds the shares in one of the two parent
companies.

(2) The CFI appears to have erred in law in forming the view
that arguments which were not raised in the course of the
administrative procedure before the Commission may not
be invoked for the first time before the CFI.

Appeal brought on 15 December 2006 by Archer Daniels
Midland Co. against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2006
in Case T-329/01: Archer Daniels Midland Company v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-510/06 P)

(2007/C 56/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Archer Daniels Midland Co. (represented by: C. Lenz,
Prof. Dr., L. Alegi, E. Batchelor and M. Garcia, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— i) set aside the Judgment in so far as it dismisses the applica-

tion brought by ADM in respect of the Decision;

— ii) annul Article 3 of the Decision insofar as it pertains to

ADM;

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

— iii) in the alternative to (ii), modify Article 3 of the Decision

to reduce further or cancel the fine imposed on ADM;

C 56/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.3.2007

— iv) in the alternative to (ii) and (iii), refer the case back to the

(a) in concluding that ADM's withdrawal is not supported

CFI for judgment of the ECJ as to the law;

by the evidence of other participants;

— v) in any event, order that the Commission bear its own
costs and pay ADM's costs relating to the proceedings
before the CFI and the ECJ.

(b) by finding that evidence of the June 1995 meeting was
contemporaneous note written by Roquette at
the
meeting.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The grounds relied upon Archer Daniels Midland Company
(hereinafter ‘ADM’) in this appeal are:

(1) the Court of First Instance (hereinafter ‘CFI’) infringes the

duty to give reasons:

(a) in rejecting ADM's plea that

the increase in fines
resulting from the Fines Guidelines was not necessary to
ensure the implementation of EC competition policy.

(b) by failing to respond to ADM's pleas that the evidence
would show lack of impact if the market was wider.

(2) the CFI errs in finding that the Commission satisfied the
Pioneer (1) test and justified the discretion to increase fines
generally and in this case;

(3) the CFI infringes the legal principles applicable to the calcu-
lation of fines by permitting the Commission to disregard
relevant EEA product turnover as an appropriate starting
point;

(1) Joined cases 100-103/80 SA Musique Diffusion Française and others

V Commission [1983] ECR 1825.

(2) OJ L 153, P.1.

Appeal brought on 15 December 2006 by Archer Daniels
Midland Co. against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2006
in Case T-59/02: Archer Daniels Midland Company v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-511/06 P)

(2007/C 56/29)

Language of the case: English

(4) the CFI infringes the principle that the Commission must

Parties

follow self-imposed rules:

(a) by holding that the Commission can prove impact on a
market without needing to respond to ADM's pleas that
no relevant economic market was proven;

(b) by permitting the Commission to disregard termination
of the infringement as a relevant attenuating circum-
stances;

(5) the CFI infringes the principle of equal treatment by finding
that there were relevant factors distinguishing the far smaller
fines imposed in Zinc Phosphates (2), a directly comparable
case;

(6) the CFI reverses the burden of proof by requiring ADM to
show that prices ‘but for’ the cartel would have been the
same;

(7) the CFI infringes Article 81 EC treaty:

(a) by misapplying the law of cartels;

(b) by concluding that

the conduct at

the June 1995

meeting in Anaheim was anticompetitive;

(8) the CFI distorts the evidence:

Appellant: Archer Daniels Midland Co. (represented by: C. Lenz,
Prof. Dr., L. Martin Alegi, E. Batchelor and M. Garcia, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— (i) set aside the Judgment in so far as it dismisses the appli-

cation brought by ADM in respect of the Decision;

— (ii) annul Article 3 of the Decision insofar as it pertains to

ADM,

— (iii) in the alternative to the point (ii), modify Article 3 of
the Decision reduce further or cancel the fine imposed on
ADM,

— (iv) in the alternative to (ii) and (iii), refer the case back to
the CFI for judgment in accordance with the judgment of
the ECJ as to the law;