Notice for the OJ

 

    

Action brought on 5 April 2002 by Ineos Phenol GmbH & Co KG against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-103/02)

    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 5 April 2002 by Ineos Phenol GmbH & Co KG, represented by Mr Julian Ellison, Mr Mark Clough QC and Mr Matthew Hall of Ashurst Morris Crisp, Brussels (Belgium).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

listnum "WP List 1" l 1annul under Article 230 of the EC Treaty the Commission Decision in case no. COMP/M.2533-BP/E.ON insofar as it relates implicitly to the merchant supply of cumene;

listnum "WP List 1" \l 1order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant is a significant purchaser of a petrochemical product called cumene from BP and Veba Oel AG.

The applicant contests the Decision of the Commission declaring an operation where BP, together with E.ON, would acquire joint control of Veba Oel under certain conditions compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement. The grounds of the present application relate to the omission of the Commission to consider, in this Decision, the competition issues raised by the combination of BP and Veba Oel, so far as their supply of merchant cumene is concerned.

The contested Decision contains, according to the applicant, several errors of assessment and errors in law. Firstly, the Commission erred in concluding that the merchant supply of cumene to one of the applicant's production sites does not constitute a separate economic market. Secondly, the Commission failed to consider whether a dominant position would be created in this market and failed to conclude that a dominant position had been created. Alternatively, the Commission failed to define a wider relevant market for the sale of cumene and failed to analyse the creation of a dominant position in such a market.

The applicant also puts forward a plea concerning the infringement of an essential procedural requirement, the misuse of powers and the violation of the principle of sound administration. According to the applicant, the Commission should have requested information from third parties in relation to the sale of cumene by BP and Veba Oel.

Finally, the applicant claims that there was a lack of reasoning in the contested Decision since the Commission failed to analyse the supply of merchant cumene by BP and Veba Oel and failed to address the issues raised in the present application.

____________