CELEX: C2006/294/119
Language: en
Date: 2006-12-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-275/06: Action brought on 4 October 2006 — Omya v Commission

2.12.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 294/59
            
         Action brought on 4 October 2006 — Omya v Commission
   (Case T-275/06)
   (2006/C 294/119)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Omya AG (Oftringen, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Flynn, Barrister, and C. Ahlborn, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               […] Omya therefore respectfully asks the Court to annul the decision and to order the Commission to pay Omya's costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 3163 final of 19 July 2006 in merger case COMP/M.3796 by which the Commission declared the applicant's take over of the precipitated calcium carbonate business from J.M. Huber Corporation compatible with the common market and the functioning of the Agreement on the European Economic Area. The Commission further imposed certain conditions and obligations with which the applicant is to comply.
   The applicant contends that (a) the competition concerns which the Commission has identified are unfounded and (b) that in any event the remedies effectively imposed on the applicant are inappropriate and are not justified by the concerns identified by the Commission and are not capable of producing the effects claimed by the Commission.
   The applicant invokes three pleas in law in support of its application.
   Firstly, the applicant submits that the Commission manifestly erred in concluding that the transaction would significantly impede effective competition.
   Secondly, the applicant claims that the Commission manifestly erred in its assessment and breached the principle of proportionality in requiring the disposal of the Kuusankoski plant.
   Thirdly, the applicant invokes that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements by failing to analyse properly the evidence in its file and failing to provide the applicant with access to all relevant documents, thereby infringing the applicant's rights of defence.