Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Coöperatieve Verkoop- en Productievereniging van Aardappelmeel en Derivaten "AVEBE" B.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-314/01)

    Language of the case: Dutch

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 December 2001 by Coöperatieve Verkoop- en Productievereniging van Aardappelmeel en Derivaten "AVEBE" B.A., established at Veendam (Netherlands), represented by Cornelis Titus Dekker, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1)annul the Commission's decision C(2001) 2931 of 2 October 2001;

(2)order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant has since 1993 been the sole owner of Glucona B.V., a company producing sodium gluconate. Glucona had previously been a joint venture between the applicant and its then partner. Glucona was involved in a cartel concerning the sale of sodium gluconate. The contested decision orders the applicant to pay a fine in that regard.

In support of its claim, the applicant pleads, primarily, failure to comply with essential procedural requirements. In particular, it asserts that its rights of defence have been violated and that an insufficient statement of reasons was given. Thus, the applicant was not given an opportunity to comment on the statements made about the applicant by another party involved in the investigation.

The applicant further pleads infringement of Article 81(1) EC and Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62¹. According to the applicant, the conduct of Glucona during the period from 1987 and 1993 cannot be attributed to it. During that period the applicant's partner in Glucona was responsible for sales policy and the applicant itself had no information whatever in that regard. It was not until 1993, when the applicant obtained total control over Glucona, that it was made aware of the cartel and was thus placed in a position of responsibility therefor.

Lastly, the applicant pleads violation of the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as the Commission failed to take account of the purely passive role played by the applicant in the cartel until 1993.

____________

¹ - Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87).