This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011CN0652
Case C-652/11 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2011 by Mindo Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2011 in Case T-19/06: Mindo Srl v European Commission
Case C-652/11 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2011 by Mindo Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2011 in Case T-19/06: Mindo Srl v European Commission
Case C-652/11 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2011 by Mindo Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2011 in Case T-19/06: Mindo Srl v European Commission
OJ C 49, 18.2.2012, p. 19–19
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
18.2.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 49/19 |
Appeal brought on 19 December 2011 by Mindo Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2011 in Case T-19/06: Mindo Srl v European Commission
(Case C-652/11 P)
2012/C 49/32
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Mindo Srl (represented by: C. Osti, A. Prastaro, G. Mastrantonio, avvocati)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
Set aside, in its entirety, the judgment of the General Court, on 5 October 2011, in case T-19/06 Mindo v. Commission and, consequently, |
|
— |
Refer the case back to the General Court and order the latter to assess it on the merits, as its judgment deprived Mindo of its right to a full judicial review at the first instance, |
|
— |
Order the Commission to pay all the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant's request is based on the following pleas in law:
|
|
The General Court affirms that Mindo has no interest in pursuing the proceedings, because it could not take any advantage of the annulment of the Contested Judgment in itself, nor in relation to Alliance One International Inc.’s (“Alliance One”) claim for contribution, or to third parties’ follow-on actions for damages. |
|
|
Firstly, the Appellant submits that the above mentioned findings should be annulled, as thy violate the applicable laws, are based on distortion of facts and, in any case, are characterized by insufficient and contradictory reasoning. |
|
|
Secondly, the Appellant argues that the Contested Judgment should be annulled because I either deprives Mindo of its right of access to the court (and consequently of its rights to have its case fully reviewed) or, should the Contested Judgment be interpreted as requiring Mindo and Alliance One to have jointly lodged the application at first instance, it breaches Mindo's and Alliance One's right of defense. |