This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/108/12
Case C-125/06 P: Appeal brought on 1 March 2006 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 15 December 2005 in Case T-33/01 Infront WM AG (formerly Kirchmedia WM AG) v Commission of the EC
Case C-125/06 P: Appeal brought on 1 March 2006 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 15 December 2005 in Case T-33/01 Infront WM AG (formerly Kirchmedia WM AG) v Commission of the EC
Case C-125/06 P: Appeal brought on 1 March 2006 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 15 December 2005 in Case T-33/01 Infront WM AG (formerly Kirchmedia WM AG) v Commission of the EC
OB C 108, 6.5.2006, p. 7–8
(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 108/7 |
Appeal brought on 1 March 2006 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 15 December 2005 in Case T-33/01 Infront WM AG (formerly Kirchmedia WM AG) v Commission of the EC
(Case C-125/06 P)
(2006/C 108/12)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Banks and M. Huttunen, Agents)
Other parties to the proceedings: French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Parliament and Council of the European Union.
The appellant claim that the Court should:
|
— |
set aside the judgment of the CFI of 15 December 2005 in case T-33/01, Infront WM AG v. Commission of the European Communities; |
|
— |
give final judgment in the matter by declaring that the Applicant in Case T-33/01 was inadmissible; |
|
— |
order the Applicant in Case T-33/01 to pay the costs of the Commission arising from that case and the present appeal. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
This appeal concerns the issues of direct and individual concern within the meaning of Article 230, fourth paragraph, EC. The Commission considers that, in the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance (hereinafter ‘the CFI’) has erred in law in its interpretation and application of those concepts. It has thereby upset the institutional balance which is reflected in the rules governing access to the Community courts in order to challenge the validity of a Community act. The CFI has treated as directly and individually concerned by a Commission decision an enterprise which could, at the very most, be considered to have suffered indirect economic damage as a result of the decision in question, and which has not even shown the likelihood of such damage. It has accepted as constituting individual concern elements common to many other operators finding themselves in situations comparable to that of the Applicant.