CELEX: C1996/354/64
Language: en
Date: 1996-11-23 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 2 October 1996 by Union Carbide Corporation against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-153/96)

23 . 11 . 96         EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 354/33
Action brought on 2 October 1996 by Union Carbide                  The applicant claims that the Commission manifestly
Corporation against the Commission of the European                 erred :
                         Communities
                                                                   — in failing in its duty to enforce the conditions upon
                      ( Case T-153/96 )
                                                                       which the Decision 94/81 1 /EC was approved and which
                        ( 96/C 354/64 )                                it sought to waive,
                                                                   — in failing in its duty to make a determination in light of
              (Language of the case: English)                          the evidence presented by the applicant that the
                                                                       conditions attached to Decision 94/8 1 1 /EC had not been
                                                                       met, and was therefore precluded from waiving such
An action against the Commission of the European                       conditions,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 2 October 1996             — in its determination that Montell does not hold a
by Union Carbide Corporation, represented by Brian                     position of dominance within the meaning of Article 2
Hartnett, of the Irish Bar, with an address for service in             ( 3 ) of the Merger Regulation on the worldwide market
Luxembourg at the chambers of Arendt & Medernach,                      for PP technology, and
Postal box 39 ,
                                                                  — in its determination that Montell does not hold a
                                                                       position of dominance within the meaning of Article 2
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           ( 3 ) of the Merger Regulation on the Western European
                                                                       market for PP resin .
— annul, in whole or in part, Commission Decision C/96
    1035 Final — Shell/Montecatini , and                          The applicant further submits that the Commission lacks
                                                                  competence to amend decisions under the Merger
— order the Commission to pay the costs , disbursements            Regulation and that therefore Decision C/96 1035 Final is
                                                                   ultra vires .
    and fees of the applicant pursuant to Article 87 of the
    Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of the
    European Communities .                                         Finally, the applicant maintains that the Commission
                                                                  Decision is flawed in that it is in breach of essential
                                                                  procedural requirements .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, an undertaking which operates in a wide
range of markets, including the licensing, via a joint venture
with Shell Oil, of its Unipol PP technology, challenges
Commission Decision C/96 1035 Final . This decision
                                                                  Action brought on 8 October 1996 by Christiane Chvatal
purports to amend Commission Decision 94/81 1 /EC                 and Others against the Court of Justice of the European
declaring the compatibility with the common market of the                                    Communities
transaction giving rise to Montell, a joint venture between
Shell Petroleum NV (' Shell '), a member of the Royal Dutch                               ( Case T-154/96 )
Shell Group, and Montedison Nederland NV                                                    ( 96/C 354/65 )
(' Montedison '), a subsidiary of Montecatini , in the
polyolefins business, including technology and production                           (Language of the case: French)
facilities for polypropylene ('PP') and other organic
chemicals of the polyolefins group ( Case No IV/M.269 ).
Decision 94/81 1 /EC is the subject of an action for an           An action against the Court of Justice of the European
annulment brought by the applicant pursuant to the fourth          Communities was brought before the Court of First
paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty and Article 43 et       Instance of the European Communities on 8 October 1996
seq of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance      by Christiane Chvatal, Jean-Yves Delaval, Jean Demaeght,
of the European Communities ( Case T-322/94 Union                 Giovanna Dragoni, John Hambly, Marc Kemmerling
Carbide v. Commission , OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 ,            Laleure, Kirsten Lammar, Theo Lippert, Antoinette Losch,
p. 17 ).                                                          Angus Mackay, Kaj Østergaard, Maureen Russell , Yvette
                                                                  Schroeder-Goerens, Ulrike Sinter, Aristides Vlachos and
                                                                  Hans Weller, all residing in Luxembourg, represented by
Decision C/96 1035 Final of 24 April 1996 purports to
                                                                  Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of
remove the conditions and obligations which the
Commission had attached to Decision 94/81 1 /EC . The
                                                                  the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                  at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson, Sari , 30 Rue de
Commission held that, in the light of the divestiture of the
                                                                  Cessange .
Shell Oil assets relating to the UCC/Shell Oil licensing
business and their acquisition by UCC, the technology
commitment described in paragraph 116 of Decision                 The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance
94/81 1 /EC was no longer necessary and that therefore the        should :
concentration between Shell and Montedison could be
declared compatible with the common market without the            — declare Council Regulation No 2688/95 of
need for any conditions or obligations attached to it.                 17 November 1995 to be unlawful inasmuch as its scope