Cementbouw Handel & Industrie v Commission (Competition) [2006] EUECJ T-282/02 (23 February 2006)

Cementbouw Handel & Industrie v Commission (Competition) [2006] EUECJ T-282/02 (23 February 2006)

The Court held that the Commission was correct to find that Haniel and the applicant acquired joint control of CVK through the interdependent transactions, and that the Commission had competence under Article 3 of Regulation No 4064/89 to assess the concentration as a single transaction. The applicant failed to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] EUECJ T-282/02
Parties
Notifying Party: Franz Haniel & Cie GmbH; Applicant: Cementbouw; Respondent: European Commission
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
23 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Annulment (article 230 Ec) / Judgment of the Court of First Instance (fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Merger Control, Definition of Concentration, Joint Control, Competence of the European Commission, Principle of Proportionality
Competition Law European Union Law Merger Control Definition of Concentration Joint Control Competence of the European Commission Principle of Proportionality

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Franz Haniel & Cie GmbH

Notifying Party

Cementbouw

Applicant

European Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Annulment (article 230 Ec) / Judgment of the Court of First Instance (fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the European Commission was competent to examine the notified transactions under Article 3 of Regulation No 4064/89
  2. 2 Whether the Commission erred in treating two transactions as a single concentration
  3. 3 Whether the Commission erred in its assessment of the creation of a dominant position

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Commission was correct to find that Haniel and the applicant acquired joint control of CVK through the interdependent transactions, and that the Commission had competence under Article 3 of Regulation No 4064/89 to assess the concentration as a single transaction. The applicant failed to demonstrate prior joint control or that the Commission's reasoning was insufficient. The pleas were rejected.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.