Appeal brought on 27 February 2007 by Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles (FNSEA), Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale des producteurs de lait (FNPL) and Jeunes agriculteurs (JA) against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) on 13 December 2006 in Joined Cases T-217/03 and T-245/03 FNCBV and Others v Commission

(Case C-110/07 P)

(2007/C 95/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles (FNSEA), Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale des producteurs de lait (FNPL), Jeunes agriculteurs (JA) (represented by: V. Ledoux and B. Néouze, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV), Commission of the European Communities, French Republic

Forms of Order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants rely on four pleas in law in support of their appeal. Firstly, the appellants assert that the Court of First Instance misconstrued the evidence submitted for its consideration in that it omitted to take into account the two essential pieces of evidence demonstrating that the agreement of 24 October 2001 did not extend beyond 30 November 2001. Secondly, the appellants allege that the Court of First Instance misapplied Community law, as well as the consistent case-law of the Court, in holding that the Commission had not infringed the rights of the defence in failing to point out, in the statement of objections, that it was going to calculate the sum of the fines taking into account the cumulative turnover of the members of the appellant federations. Thirdly, they allege infringement of Article 15(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 17/62. In order to conclude that the fines imposed did not exceed the ceiling of 10 % of turnover, laid down in that article, the Court of First Instance took into account the cumulative turnover of the members of those federations, without the precise conditions and objectives laid down in the case-law being fulfilled. Finally, by their fourth plea in law, the appellants allege an infringement of the principle of non bis in idem, as well as a breach of the principle of proportionality, in that the Court of First Instance imposed, on each of the federations, a separate fine based on the cumulative turnover of members common to those federations. According to the appellants, in the present case only 1 federation can have a penalty imposed upon it, which takes into account the cumulative financial capacity of the common members of the appellant federations.