Case T-345/12: Action brought on 3 August 2012 — Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission
Date: 2012-08-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical salt, confidentiality, oxide, principle of legal certainty








C_2012295EN.01002902.xml










29.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/29





Action brought on 3 August 2012 — Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission
(Case T-345/12)
2012/C 295/53
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Akzo Nobel NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Chemicals Holding AB (Nacka, Sweden) and Eka Chemicals AB (Bohus, Sweden) (represented by: C. Swaak and R. Wesseling, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annulment, in whole or in part, of Commission Decision C(2012) 3533 final of 24 May 2012 rejecting a request for confidential treatment submitted in relation to Case COMP/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and Perboratem;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three main pleas in law and two alternative pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated the duty to state reasons and the applicants’ right to good administration pursuant to Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the publication of the extended non-confidential version of the Hydrogen Peroxide Decision violates the Commission’s obligation of confidentiality pursuant Article 339 TFEU as further implemented by Regulation 1/2003 (1), Regulation 773/2004 (2) and the Commission’s 2002 and 2006 Leniency Notices (3).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the publication of an extended non-confidential version of the Hydrogen Peroxide Decision that contains information originating from the applicants’ leniency application violates the principles of legal certainty, the applicants’ legitimate expectations and the right to good administration pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










4.


Fourth plea in law, applicable to the extent that the Commission decision can be considered to imply a decision to grant access to certain information on the basis of the Transparency Regulation (4), alleging that the Commission has violated its duty to state reasons and the right to good administration pursuant to Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










5.


Fifth plea in law, applicable to the extent that the Commission decision can be considered to imply a decision to grant access to certain information on the basis of the Transparency Regulation, alleging that the publication of the extended non-confidential version of the Hydrogen Peroxide Decision violates the said regulation.






(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)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 123, p. 18).

(3)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3) and Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2006 C 298, p. 17).

(4)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, p. 43).