CELEX: C2006/212/57
Language: en
Date: 2006-09-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-170/06: Action brought on 29 June 2006 — Alrosa v Commission

2.9.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 212/31
            
         Action brought on 29 June 2006 — Alrosa v Commission
   (Case T-170/06)
   (2006/C 212/57)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Alrosa Company Ltd. (Mirny, Russia) (represented by: R. Subiotto, S. Mobley, K. Jones, Solicitors)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision in its entirety;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay Alrosa's legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the Commission's decision of 22 February 2006, by which the Commission made binding upon De Beers a commitment to phase out between 2006 and 2008 and to cease as from 1 January 2009 all direct and indirect purchases of rough diamonds from the applicant.
   In support of its application, the applicant invokes, first, a violation of its right to be heard in the procedure leading to the decision. The applicant submits that the Commission was required to explain which third party observations and what aspects of the Commission's analysis justified the rejection of the commitments originally proposed jointly by De Beers and the applicant and the adoption of the final commitments proposed by De Beers.
   Second, the applicant invokes a violation of Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003 in that the commitments made binding by the contested decision were offered only by De Beers, rather than by the undertakings concerned, namely De Beers and the applicant. The applicant adds that the contested decision has not been adopted for a specified period.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decision's absolute and potentially indefinite prohibition on De Beers' purchasing rough diamonds directly or indirectly from the applicant violates Article 82 EC and Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003, as well as the fundamental principles of freedom of contract and proportionality.