CELEX: C2006/178/27
Language: en
Date: 2006-07-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-202/06 P: Appeal brought on  4 May 2006  by Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV against the judgement of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on  23 February 2006  in Case T-282/02: Cementbouw Handel & Industrie B.V. v Commission of the European Communities

29.7.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 178/17
            
         Appeal brought on 4 May 2006 by Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV against the judgement of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23 February 2006 in Case T-282/02: Cementbouw Handel & Industrie B.V. v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-202/06 P)
   (2006/C 178/27)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Appellant: Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV (represented by: W. Knibbeler, O. Brouwer and P.J. Kreijger, lawyers)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgement of the Court of First Instance of 23 February 2006 by which it:
               
                           a)
                        
                        
                           dismissed the action brought by the Appellant
                        
                     
                           b)
                        
                        
                           ordered the Appellant to pay the costs of the proceedings
                        
                     
         
               —
            
            
               if considered appropriate, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by eventual intervening parties.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance in its judgement of 23 February 2006:
   
               a.
            
            
               misinterpreted and misapplied Articles 1, 2 and 3(1) of the Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, as amended by Regulation (EC) No. 1310/97 (the Merger Regulation) (1) and:
            
         
               b.
            
            
               violated the principle of proportionality and misinterpreted and misapplied Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation;
            
         which led it wrongly to dismiss the Appellant's application and to uphold the decision of the Commission in so far as it rejected the first set of commitments offered by the Appellant and Haniel as insufficient.
   
      (1)  OJ L 180, p. 1.