Appeal brought on 1 June 2012 by Guillermo Cañas against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 26 March 2012 in Case T-508/09 Cañas v Commission

(Case C-269/12 P)

2012/C 235/15

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Guillermo Cañas (represented by: Y. Bonnard, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, World Anti-Doping Agency, ATP Tour Inc.

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant sets out three grounds of appeal against the General Court’s decision.

First, the appellant submits that the General Court failed to have regard to the right of an undertaking which is temporarily excluded from a market to bring an action against the shelving of a complaint in respect of an infringement of competition law by making that undertaking’s locus standi conditional on the immediate advantage which that action for annulment would secure for it. The annulment of the shelving of a complaint never in the appellant’s view tends in itself to secure an immediate advantage for the applicant as it can lead only to the examination of the complaint, without any guarantee of the outcome.

Secondly, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in holding that his locus standi was lost because he is still adversely affected by the anti-competitive obstacles complained of. He takes the view that, despite the fact that he has ended his career in sports, he still has locus standi, namely an interest in securing the annulment of the Commission’s decision to shelve his complaint without taking any further action on it and in a declaration on the Commission’s part that the obstacles complained of are unlawful, these being the prior stages necessary for making a claim for damages against the World Anti-Doping Agency, ATP Tour Inc. and the International Council of Arbitration for Sport.

Thirdly, the appellant submits that the General Court held that the annulment of the shelving of his complaint would have no effect on his right to make a claim for damages against the undertakings that he has complained about since the administrative procedure before the Commission cannot preclude an action before the competent civil courts. However, that argument is based on an error of fact inasmuch as the decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport of 23 May 2007 found that the obstacles complained of were not contrary to European Union competition law, which is the reason why, in the absence of a favourable decision on the part of the Commission, it was impossible for the appellant to make a claim for damages.