Case T-140/07: Action brought on 26 April 2007 — Chi Mei Optoelectronics Europe and Chi Mei Optoelectronics UK v Commission
Date: 2007-04-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), application of EU law, competition law, exchange of information, provision of documents

C 155/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.7.2007

— Absence of conditions for the joint and several liability of

Schindler Holding Ltd;

— Breach of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 on the
ground that the maximum limits for fines were exceeded.

(1) 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).

(2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC
Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).

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

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

Action brought on 2 May 2007 — Pioneer Hi-Bred
International v Commission

(Case T-139/07)

(2007/C 155/53)

Language of the case: English

time prescribed in the directive. The applicant
furthermore
submits that by failing to submit to the Regulatory Committee a
draft of the measures to be taken the Commission failed to
ensure that such a decision was adopted even though all require-
ments on the applicant and other parties under the directive
had been completed in accordance with the directive.

The applicant moreover submits that the Commission has been
called upon to define its position within the terms of Article
232 EC which the Commission has failed to do. This has,
according to the applicant, had adverse effects on the applicant's
legal situation.

(1) Directive 2001/18/EC of

the
Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environ-
ment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Direc-
tive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1).

the European Parliament and of

Action brought on 26 April 2007 — Chi Mei Optoelectro-
and Chi Mei Optoelectronics UK v
nics Europe

Commission

(Case T-140/07)

(2007/C 155/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pioneer Hi-Bred International
(represented by: J. Temple Lang, Solicitor)

Inc.

(Johnston, USA)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Form of order sought

— Find that the Commission has failed to act in accordance
with Article 18 of Directive 2001/18 on the deliberate
release into the environment of genetically modified organ-
isms,
to the Regulatory
Committee a draft of the measures to be taken pursuant to
Article 5(2) of the Council decision;

in having failed to submit

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

to Article 232 EC,

The applicant claims, pursuant
the
Commission has failed to act, in infringement of Article 18 of
Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environ-
ment of genetically modified organisms (1), to ensure the adop-
tion of a decision concerning the applicant's notification for the
placing on the market of insect-resistant genetically modified
maize 1507.

that

The applicant contends that under the procedure set out in the
directive, the Commission is obliged to ensure that a decision
on a notification is adopted and published within the period of

Applicants: Chi Mei Optoelectronics Europe BV (Hoofddorp, The
Netherlands), Chi Mei Optoelectronics UK Ltd (Havant, United
Kingdom)
(represented by: S. Völcker, F. Louis, A. Vallery,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicants respectfully ask the Court to

— annul the contested decision in its entirety; and

— order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of their application the applicants seek annulment of
Commission Decision C (2007)546 of 15 February 2007 on
the basis of which the Commission, has compelled the appli-
cants, pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation No 1/
2003 (1), to provide specific information and documents related
to practices under investigation in Case COMP/F/39309 — Thin
Films Transistors Liquid Crystal Displays.

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/29

The applicants submit that the contested decision is unlawful in
that the Commission lacks the investigative and enforcement
power to compel EU subsidiaries to produce documents and to
provide information under the sole custody and control of legal
entities located outside the Commission's jurisdiction.
is,
hence, submitted that the Commission erred in law by addres-
sing a formal request for information to the applicants, thereby
compelling them to provide documents and information under
the sole control and possession of their parent company located
outside the EU territory.

It

the applicants claim that

Precisely,
the contested decision
infringes Article 18(1) and (3) of Council Regulation No 1/
2003 because it disregards the document ownership and control
doctrine and thus the inherent limitation of these provisions. In
addition,
the contested decision
violates the general principles of international law of territori-
ality, of sovereignty, of non-intervention and of equality of
States by allegedly asserting enforcement
jurisdiction over a
company located outside the EU.

the applicants contend that

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the
implementation of the rules in competition laid down in Articles 81
and 82 EC (OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1).

Action brought on 7 May 2007 — ThyssenKrupp Liften
Ascenseurs v Commission

(Case T-144/07)

(2007/C 155/55)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV/SA (Brussels,
Belgium) (represented by: V. Turner and D. Mes, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the

applicant;

— in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine for which

the applicant is held to be jointly and severally liable;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2007) 512
final (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — PO/Elevators and Escalators). It
seeks the annulment of the decision to the extent to which the

latter concerns it, or alternatively a reduction in the fine
imposed on it.

In support of its action the applicant first of all submits that the
Commission was not empowered to apply Article 81 EC inas-
much as the infringement did not have any significant effect on
inter-State trade within the EU.

In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission
was not the appropriate competition authority for the applica-
tion of Article 81 EC within the terms of the Commission
Notice on cooperation within the network of competition
authorities (1). According to the applicant, by initiating yet
another set of proceedings, the Commission infringed the legiti-
mate expectations which the applicant was able to derive from
the application of that notice.

Third, by instituting proceedings and imposing a fine,
the
Commission infringed the ne bis in idem principle, the principle
of legal certainty, the principle of the protection of legitimate
expectations and the principle of sound administration inas-
much as the Belgian competition authority had conferred on the
applicant immunity from fines with regard to participation in
the cartel-related offence which forms the subject-matter of the
contested decision.

it

is

alleged that

Further,
the Commission improperly
concluded that the applicant, ThyssenKrupp Elevators AG and
ThyssenKrupp AG were jointly and severally liable for the infrin-
gement which the applicant itself had committed.

The applicant also submits that,
in fixing the fine to be
imposed, the Commission infringed Article 23 of Regulation
No 1/2003 (2), the Commission's guidelines on setting fines (3),
the principle of equality and the principle of proportionality.
The Commission,
it alleges, also failed to comply with the
maximum level for fines laid down in Article 23.

The applicant further submits that the Commission breached
the leniency notice (4) and the principle of equality when deter-
mining the amount of the reduction in the fine to be imposed
on the applicant by reason of its cooperation within the frame-
work of the leniency notice.

Finally, the applicant alleges that the Commission infringed the
principles of equality, proportionality, protection of legitimate
expectations and sound administration when determining the
amount of the reduction in the fine to be imposed on the appli-
cant by reason of its cooperation outwith the framework of the
leniency notice.

(1) OJ 2004 C 101, p. 43.
(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).

(3) Commission notice: Guidelines on the method of

setting
fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and
Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).

(4) Commission notice on immunity from fines and reductions of fines

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