Case C-509/06 P: 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
Date: 2007-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, action for annulment (EU), appeal, chemical industry, economic concentration, economic sanctions

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;