Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/19

Appeal brought on 8 December 2007 by Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd, Akcros Chemicals Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 17 September 2007 in Case T-253/03: Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ld and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-550/07 P)

(2008/C 37/28)

Language of the case: English


Appellants: Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd, Akcros Chemicals Ltd (represented by: C. Swaak, advocaat, M. Mollica and M. van der Woude, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union, Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, Association européenne des juristes d'entreprise (AEJE), American Corporate Counsel Association (ACCA) — European Chapter, International Bar Association

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of 17 September 2007 in Case T-253/03, insofar as it rejected the claim of LPP for communications with Akzo Nobel's in-house lawyer;

annul the Rejection Decision of 8 May 2003 of the Commission, in as far as it refused to return the e-mail correspondence with Akzo Nobel's in-house lawyer (part of Set B documents);

order the Commission to pay costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the CFI in as far as they concern the plea raised in the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that by rejecting this claim, the CFI violated Community Law. In particular, the Appellants contend that by strictly following a partial and literal interpretation of a few paragraphs of AM&S Europe v Commission  (1), the CFI:


gave incorrect interpretation of the principle of LPP as it is explained in AM&S, thereby violating the principle of equality (section B)


in the alternative, by refusing to reinterpret the principle of LPP in view of the significant developments in the legal landscape, violated the general principles of protection of the rights of defence and of legal certainty (section C); and


in the further alternative, violated Article 5 EC (principle of attribution of competence) and the principle of national procedural autonomy (section D).

(1)  Case 155/79, (1982) p. 1575.