This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/108/03
Case C-76/06 P: Appeal brought on 9 February 2006 by Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd. against the judgment delivered on 29 November 2005 in Case T-33/02 Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities
Case C-76/06 P: Appeal brought on 9 February 2006 by Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd. against the judgment delivered on 29 November 2005 in Case T-33/02 Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities
Case C-76/06 P: Appeal brought on 9 February 2006 by Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd. against the judgment delivered on 29 November 2005 in Case T-33/02 Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities
OB C 108, 6.5.2006, p. 2–3
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
6.5.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 108/2 |
Appeal brought on 9 February 2006 by Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd. against the judgment delivered on 29 November 2005 in Case T-33/02 Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities
(Case C-76/06 P)
(2006/C 108/03)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd. (represented by: S. Mobley, H. Bardell and M. Commons, Solicitors)
Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
The appellant claims that the Court should:
— |
set aside the judgment insofar as it dismisses the application brought by Britannia in respect of the Decision; |
— |
annul Article 3 of the Decision insofar as it pertains to Britannia; |
— |
in the alternative to (ii), modify Article 3 of the Decision as it pertains to Britannia, so as to annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed on Britannia therein; |
— |
in the alternative to (ii) and (iii), refer the case back to the CFI for judgment in accordance with the judgment of the ECJ as to the law; |
— |
in any event, order that the Commission bear its own costs and pay Britannia's costs relating to the proceedings before the CFI and the ECJ. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant maintains that:
1) |
the CFI infringed Article 15(2) of Regulation No. 17/62/EEC (‘Regulation 17’) (1) by holding that the Commission lawfully applied the 10 % turnover cap under Article 15(2) to Britannia's turnover for the business year ending 30 June 1996, rather than the business year preceding the adoption of the Decision; |
2) |
the CFI infringed the principle of equality:
|
3) |
the CFI infringed the principle of legal certainty:
|
(1) EEC Council: Regulation no 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ 013, 21.02.1962, p. 204-211)