CELEX: 62011TN0485
Language: en
Date: 2011-09-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-485/11: Action brought on 12 September 2011 — Akzo Nobel and Akcros Chemicals v Commission

12.11.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 331/25
            
         Action brought on 12 September 2011 — Akzo Nobel and Akcros Chemicals v Commission
   (Case T-485/11)
   2011/C 331/49
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Akzo Nobel NV (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and Akcros Chemicals Ltd (Warwickshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Swaak and R. Wesseling, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul in whole or in part Commission Decision of 30 June 2011 amending Decision C(2009) 8682 final 11 November 2009, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (now Article 101 TFEU) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers), to the extent it was addressed to the applicants;
            
         
               —
            
            
               In the alternative, reduce the fine imposed by Article 1, paragraphs 2), 4), 19) and 21) of Commission Decision of 30 June 2011; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly attributed joint and several liability to the applicants and companies of the Elementis group and wrongly applied the concept of joint and several liability in holding the applicants liable for the share of the fine of the companies pertaining to Elementis group.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly amended the 2009 Decision to the detriment of the applicants (while an action for annulment of the 2009 Decision is pending) in violation of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant wrongly amended the 2009 Decision without the adoption of a new supplementary statement of objections, thereby violating the applicants’ rights of deference and in particular the right to be heard.