Action brought on 9 October 2006- Sun Chemical Group and others v Commission

(Case T-282/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sun Chemical Group BV (Weesp, The Netherlands), Siegwerk Druckfarben AG (Siegburg, Germany), Flint Group Germany GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Dodoo, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annulment of Commission Decision COMP/M.4071 - Apollo/Akzo Nobel IAR of 29 May 2006;

order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The application at stake is made pursuant to Article 230 EC for the annulment of Commission Decision COMP/M.4071- Apollo/Akzo Nobel IAR of 29 May 2006, declaring a notified concentration compatible with the common market.

The applicants claim that the Commission cleared the concentration unconditionally, without affording it the careful, detailed and consistent review that it warranted, considering the serious competition concerns it allegedly raised. According to the applicants, a review of the decision, an assessment of the applicants' respective responses to the Commission's market investigation, and an examination of the salient features of the industry demonstrate that the Commission failed to consider or, where it purports to do so, ignored evidence that was vital for a complete and accurate assessment of the notified concentration.

Moreover, the applicants submit that the Commission has not merely ignored its own guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers¹, but also the complaints expressed and the evidence supplied by them. In fact, the Commission apparently relied in several respects, solely on information provided by the merging parties without verifying its accuracy, resulting in a decision tainted with errors of law, fact and appreciation.

Considering the circumstances outlined above, the Commission should have provided, as the applicants maintain, motivated reasoning for clearing the notified operation. Having failed to do so entails a violation of its duty to state reasons and thus of Article 253 EC.

____________

¹ - OJ 2004 C 31, p. 5-18