CELEX: C2003/146/75
Language: en
Date: 2003-06-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-125/03: Action brought on 11 April 2003 by Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd. and Akcros Chemicals Ltd. against the Commission of the European Communities

C 146/42               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.6.2003
Action brought on 11 April 2003 by Akzo Nobel Chemi-                      In support of their application, the applicants submit that the
cals Ltd. and Akcros Chemicals Ltd. against the Com-                      Commission has committed an infringement of the Treaty, an
            mission of the European Communities                           infringement of general principles of Community Law and has
                                                                          violated Regulation 17/62 as interpreted by the European
                                                                          Courts.
                         (Case T-125/03)
                        (2003/C 146/75)                                   More specifically, the applicants claim that the Commission
                                                                          has violated the principle of legal professional privilege by
                                                                          violating the procedures relating to the application of the
                  (Language of the case: English)                         principle as set out by the European Courts. Furthermore, the
                                                                          applicant submits that the Commission violated the principle
                                                                          of legal professional privilege by its unjustified and immediate
                                                                          denial of its application during the on the spot investigation
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 and the seizure of some of the documents. Finally, the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                applicants submit that the Commission violated the applicants’
European Communities on 11 April 2003 by Akzo Nobel                       fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy.
Chemicals Ltd., Hersham, United Kingdom, and Akcros
Chemicals Ltd., Hersham, United Kingdom, represented by
Mr C. Swaak, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     to review under Article 230 the legality of the Decision
      in as far as it has been interpreted by the Commission              Action brought on 15 April 2003 by Paola Casini against
      as legitimating and/or constituting the basis of the                       the Commission of the European Communities
      Commission’s action (which is not severable from the
      Decision), of seizing and/or reviewing and/or reading
      documents covered by legal professional privilege;                                           (Case T-132/03)
—     to annul under Article 231 the Decision in as far as it has                                  (2003/C 146/76)
      been interpreted by the Commission as legitimating and/
      or constituting the basis of the Commission’s action
      (which is not severable from the Decision), of seizing                                  (Language of the case: French)
      and/or reviewing and/or reading documents covered by
      legal professional privilege;
—     to require that the Commission, to comply with the
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      judgement annulling the Decision, return documents
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      covered by legal professional privilege and not to use
                                                                          European Communities on 15 April 2003 by Paola Casini,
      their contents in any way;
                                                                          residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden,
                                                                          avocat.
—     to order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in
      the present proceedings.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     order the list of officials promoted to Grade A 6 which
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                was published on 18 August 2002 to be annulled in so
                                                                                far as the applicant’s name is not included on that list;
Pursuant to Commission Decision C(2003)559/4 of 10 Febru-
ary 2003, the Commission conducted an on the spot investi-                —     order compensation to be paid to the applicant in respect
gation on the premises of the applicants in Eccles, Manchester,                 of the material and non-material damage which she has
United Kingdom. In the course of the investigation, the                         suffered, provisionally estimated at a total of EUR 20 000,
Commission reviewed, copied and seized several documents.                       in respect of which the material damage relates to
                                                                                the financial readjustment of the applicant’s salary to
                                                                                correspond to Grade A 6 from the date of publication of
Some of these documents became the object of a disagreement                     the list of those promoted (increased by default interest
between the applicants and the Commission. According to the                     fixed at 7 % per annum);
applicants, the seizure of those documents violated the general
principle of legal professional privilege.                                —     order the defendant to pay all of the costs.