Action brought on 22 March 2010 - Communauté de communes de Lacq v Commission

(Case T-132/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Communauté de communes de Lacq (Mourenx, France) (represented by: J. Daniel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Order the European Union to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 000 because of the unlawfulness and deficiency of the Commission's behaviour in the light of the breach, by ACETEX, of its undertakings;

order the European Union to pay the applicant EUR 25 000 by way of non -recoverable costs;

order the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Communauté de communes de Lacq (Community of the communes of Lacq) seeks damages for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission's decision to declare compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement the concentration involving the acquisition, by Celanese Corporation, of control of Acetex Corporation, without acknowledging the legal value to an alleged undertaking by Celanese, in particular the commitment to continue the operation of the Acetex factory in Pardies for five years (Case COMP/M.3625 - Blackstone/Acetex).

In support of its action, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations since, through its interpretation of the EC Merger Regulation, ¹ it deprived all third parties to concentrations (employees and local officials) of protection, even though, in the light of the commitments given by Celanese Corporation, it was certain that employees would be protected against a cessation of activity for five years.

The applicant thus certainly suffered significant damage. Indeed, local authorities in that area are deprived of important fiscal resources and have to pay out numerous social benefits because of the closure of the site. Numerous redundancies must be expected, both among employees of Acetex and also among employees of companies whose activities were closely linked to that of Celanese Corporation.

In the alternative, if it cannot be established that there was tortious liability on the part of the European Commission, the applicant asks that the Commission be held strictly liable. There can be no doubt as to the damage suffered by the applicant and its unusual and special nature and that that damage was directly caused by the refusal of the European Commission to sanction Celanese Corporation.

____________

¹ - Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control ofconcentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p.1)