This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/249/09
Case C-341/06 P: Appeal brought on 4 August 2006 by Chronopost SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 June 2006 in Case T-613/97 Union française de l'express (Ufex) and Others v Commission of the European Communities
Case C-341/06 P: Appeal brought on 4 August 2006 by Chronopost SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 June 2006 in Case T-613/97 Union française de l'express (Ufex) and Others v Commission of the European Communities
Case C-341/06 P: Appeal brought on 4 August 2006 by Chronopost SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 June 2006 in Case T-613/97 Union française de l'express (Ufex) and Others v Commission of the European Communities
IO C 249, 14.10.2006, p. 4–4
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
14.10.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 249/4 |
Appeal brought on 4 August 2006 by Chronopost SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 June 2006 in Case T-613/97 Union française de l'express (Ufex) and Others v Commission of the European Communities
(Case C-341/06 P)
(2006/C 249/09)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Chronopost SA (represented by: D. Berlin, avocat)
Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, French Republic, La Poste, Union française de l'express (Ufex), DHL International SA, Federal express international (France) SNC, CRIE SA
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
quash the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2006 inasmuch as it annuls Commission Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997 (1) on the ground of inadequate reasoning and failure to apply the concept of State aid; |
|
— |
endorse the remainder of the judgment of the Court of First Instance, give final judgment without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance, and affirm the legality of Commission Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997; |
|
— |
order the applicants at first instance to pay the entire costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant puts forward three grounds of appeal.
By its first ground of appeal, the applicant alleges an infringement, by the Court of First Instance, of the general principles of Community law and, in particular, of the right to a fair trial in so far as that Court did not provide all of the necessary guarantees of impartiality as the judge who acted as Rapporteur in the contested judgment of 7 June 2006 was also a member of the Chamber which adopted the judgment — annulled by the Court — in Case T-613/97 Ufex and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-4055.
By its second ground of appeal, the applicant alleges that the Court exceeded its competence and infringed Articles 230 EC and 253 EC in that it carried out, in the guise of a review of the statement of reasons provided, a review of the substance of Commission Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997 concerning alleged State aid granted by France to SFMI-Chronopost (OJ 1998, L 164, p. 37) and of the allegedly manifest errors of assessment which the Commission made in the exercise of its discretion. The applicant also alleges that the Court substituted its own assessment for that of the Commission, thereby exceeding its competence and causing another infringement of Articles 230 and 253 EC.
By its third ground of appeal, the applicant finally alleges that the Court made several errors of law by comparing the conduct of a public undertaking benefiting from a reserved sector to that of a private undertaking, by applying to the creation of an undertaking by a parent company the case-law concerning the relationships between parent companies and existing subsidiaries and concluding that SFMI was given an advantage, resulting from the transfer to its books of Postadex's customers. For these various reasons, the Court infringed Article 87 EC.