Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 4 May 2003 by Scania AB against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-163/03)

    Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 May 2003 by Scania AB, Södertälje, Sweden, represented by Mr S. Pappas, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

    

listnum "WP List 1" \l 1annul the Decision of 4 Mars 2003 of the Merger Task Force of the European Commission.

listnum "WP List 1" \l 1annul the Decision of 16 April 2003 of the Merger Task Force of the European Commission.

listnum "WP List 1" \l 1annul the Decision of 24 April 2003 of the Merger Task Force of the European Commission.

listnum "WP List 1" \l 1annul the refusal of the Commission to review the arrangement of the divestiture of the shareholding of Volvo in Scania and enforce an immediate divestiture as requested during the meeting of the 20th February 2003 and put on in the letter of the 21st February 2003.

listnum "WP List 2" \l 1order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant is a truck and bus manufacturer. By means of the contested decisions, the Commission refused to enforce an immediate divestiture of the shareholding of AB Volvo in Scania AB and refused to communicate to the applicant the confidential terms of the divestiture of the Shareholding of AB Volvo in Scania AB as stipulated in the AB Volvo/Renault Véhicule Industriel (VI) decision. On the basis of these Commission Decisions, AB Volvo has been able to maintain a dominant position vis-à-vis Scania for almost 4 years.

In support of its claim, the applicant invokes Articles 8 (4), 6 and 18(3) of the Merger Regulation¹.

According to the applicant, the Commission infringed Article 8 ( 4) of the Merger Regulation by refusing to enforce an immediate divestiture at the applicant's request. The applicant argues that the minority shareholding of AB Volvo constitutes de jure and de facto, sole or joint control with investor AB over Scania which should have been stopped by the Commission.

    

Furthermore, the applicant invokes Article 6 of the Merger Regulation. The applicant submits that the Commission should have revoked the Volvo/Renault decision and reviewed the terms of the divestiture. The applicant alleges that Volvo infringed its undertaking pertaining to the divestiture when participating in the decision-making process of Scania.

The applicant also claims that the Commission should have disclosed to Scania the information relating to the confidential approved terms of the divestiture as stipulated in the Volvo/Renault (VI) decision. The applicant claims to be a directly involved party to whom the Commission should have granted access to the information contained in the Volvo/Renault decision.

Finally, the applicant argues that any prolongation for the accomplishment of the divestiture from 2003 to 2004 is not automatic but should have been assessed and justified by the Commission.

____________

¹ - Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21.12.1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (JO L 257, p. 13).