You are on page 1of 2

C 155/28 EN Official Journal of the European Union 7.7.

2007

— Absence of conditions for the joint and several liability of time prescribed in the directive. The applicant furthermore
Schindler Holding Ltd; submits that by failing to submit to the Regulatory Committee a
draft of the measures to be taken the Commission failed to
— Breach of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 on the ensure that such a decision was adopted even though all require-
ground that the maximum limits for fines were exceeded. ments on the applicant and other parties under the directive
had been completed in accordance with the directive.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the The applicant moreover submits that the Commission has been
implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 called upon to define its position within the terms of Article
and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
(2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to 232 EC which the Commission has failed to do. This has,
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC according to the applicant, had adverse effects on the applicant's
Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3). legal situation.
3
( ) Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines
in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).

(1) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the


Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environ-
ment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Direc-
tive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1).

Action brought on 2 May 2007 — Pioneer Hi-Bred


International v Commission

(Case T-139/07)
Action brought on 26 April 2007 — Chi Mei Optoelectro-
(2007/C 155/53) nics Europe and Chi Mei Optoelectronics UK v
Commission
Language of the case: English
(Case T-140/07)

(2007/C 155/54)
Parties
Language of the case: English
Applicant: Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. (Johnston, USA)
(represented by: J. Temple Lang, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities Parties

Applicants: Chi Mei Optoelectronics Europe BV (Hoofddorp, The


Form of order sought Netherlands), Chi Mei Optoelectronics UK Ltd (Havant, United
Kingdom) (represented by: S. Völcker, F. Louis, A. Vallery,
lawyers)
— Find that the Commission has failed to act in accordance
with Article 18 of Directive 2001/18 on the deliberate
release into the environment of genetically modified organ- Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
isms, in having failed to submit to the Regulatory
Committee a draft of the measures to be taken pursuant to
Article 5(2) of the Council decision; Form of order sought
— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.
The applicants respectfully ask the Court to

— annul the contested decision in its entirety; and


Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the Commission to bear the costs.
The applicant claims, pursuant to Article 232 EC, that the
Commission has failed to act, in infringement of Article 18 of
Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environ- Pleas in law and main arguments
ment of genetically modified organisms (1), to ensure the adop-
tion of a decision concerning the applicant's notification for the By means of their application the applicants seek annulment of
placing on the market of insect-resistant genetically modified Commission Decision C (2007)546 of 15 February 2007 on
maize 1507. the basis of which the Commission, has compelled the appli-
cants, pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation No 1/
The applicant contends that under the procedure set out in the 2003 (1), to provide specific information and documents related
directive, the Commission is obliged to ensure that a decision to practices under investigation in Case COMP/F/39309 — Thin
on a notification is adopted and published within the period of Films Transistors Liquid Crystal Displays.
7.7.2007 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/29

The applicants submit that the contested decision is unlawful in latter concerns it, or alternatively a reduction in the fine
that the Commission lacks the investigative and enforcement imposed on it.
power to compel EU subsidiaries to produce documents and to
provide information under the sole custody and control of legal
entities located outside the Commission's jurisdiction. It is, In support of its action the applicant first of all submits that the
hence, submitted that the Commission erred in law by addres- Commission was not empowered to apply Article 81 EC inas-
sing a formal request for information to the applicants, thereby much as the infringement did not have any significant effect on
compelling them to provide documents and information under inter-State trade within the EU.
the sole control and possession of their parent company located
outside the EU territory. In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission
was not the appropriate competition authority for the applica-
Precisely, the applicants claim that the contested decision tion of Article 81 EC within the terms of the Commission
infringes Article 18(1) and (3) of Council Regulation No 1/ Notice on cooperation within the network of competition
2003 because it disregards the document ownership and control authorities (1). According to the applicant, by initiating yet
doctrine and thus the inherent limitation of these provisions. In another set of proceedings, the Commission infringed the legiti-
addition, the applicants contend that the contested decision mate expectations which the applicant was able to derive from
violates the general principles of international law of territori- the application of that notice.
ality, of sovereignty, of non-intervention and of equality of
States by allegedly asserting enforcement jurisdiction over a
company located outside the EU. Third, by instituting proceedings and imposing a fine, the
Commission infringed the ne bis in idem principle, the principle
of legal certainty, the principle of the protection of legitimate
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the expectations and the principle of sound administration inas-
implementation of the rules in competition laid down in Articles 81 much as the Belgian competition authority had conferred on the
and 82 EC (OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1). applicant immunity from fines with regard to participation in
the cartel-related offence which forms the subject-matter of the
contested decision.

Further, it is alleged that the Commission improperly


concluded that the applicant, ThyssenKrupp Elevators AG and
ThyssenKrupp AG were jointly and severally liable for the infrin-
gement which the applicant itself had committed.
Action brought on 7 May 2007 — ThyssenKrupp Liften
Ascenseurs v Commission
The applicant also submits that, in fixing the fine to be
imposed, the Commission infringed Article 23 of Regulation
(Case T-144/07) No 1/2003 (2), the Commission's guidelines on setting fines (3),
the principle of equality and the principle of proportionality.
(2007/C 155/55) The Commission, it alleges, also failed to comply with the
maximum level for fines laid down in Article 23.
Language of the case: Dutch

The applicant further submits that the Commission breached


the leniency notice (4) and the principle of equality when deter-
Parties mining the amount of the reduction in the fine to be imposed
on the applicant by reason of its cooperation within the frame-
Applicant: ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV/SA (Brussels, work of the leniency notice.
Belgium) (represented by: V. Turner and D. Mes, lawyers)
Finally, the applicant alleges that the Commission infringed the
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities principles of equality, proportionality, protection of legitimate
expectations and sound administration when determining the
amount of the reduction in the fine to be imposed on the appli-
Form of order sought cant by reason of its cooperation outwith the framework of the
leniency notice.
— annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the
applicant;
(1) OJ 2004 C 101, p. 43.
— in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine for which (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the
the applicant is held to be jointly and severally liable; implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81
and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. (3) Commission notice: Guidelines on the method of setting
fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and
Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).
4
Pleas in law and main arguments ( ) Commission notice on immunity from fines and reductions of fines
in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).

The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2007) 512


final (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — PO/Elevators and Escalators). It
seeks the annulment of the decision to the extent to which the