Appeal brought on 5 December 2006 by CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA. against the judgment delivered on 13 September 2006 in Case T-226/01 CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA v Commission

(Case C-497/06P)

(2007/C 42/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and D. Fioretti, Avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law put forward challenging the judgment of the Court of First Instance may be divided into four categories, which relate to: the significance of the judgment in Case C-496/99 P Commission v CAS; the substitution of fruit; the coefficients of substitution; the costs incurred by the appellant in arguing its case.

With regard to the significance of the judgment delivered in Case C-496/99 P Commission v CAS, the appellant alleges: distortion and misrepresentation of the arguments put forward by the appellant on the significance of the judgment in Case T-226/01 Commission v CAS; breach of the principle of the authority of res judicata; misrepresentation of the action for damages referred to in the judgment in Commission v CAS; an error in the interpretation of the conditions under which an action for damages may be brought.

With regard to the substitution of fruit, the appellant alleges: a failure to provide adequate reasoning in relation to the loss suffered as a result of the substitution of the fruit and manifest error of assessment of the appellant's arguments concerning the unlawfulness of the tendering procedure; an error concerning the legal significance of the substitution of the fruit in the context of the mechanism of the tendering procedure; breach of the principle of the authority of res judicata in relation to the date when it was known with certainty that substituted fruit was to be received; distortion of the clear sense of the evidence in the case-file and failure to give adequate reasons concerning the advantages resulting from the substitution of fruit and the appellant's knowledge as of March 1996; infringement of procedural rules, manifest distortion of evidence and breach of the general principles relating to the burden of proof.

With regard to the coefficients of substitution, the appellant claims; an incorrect assessment of the quantities of fruit to be taken into account in calculating the loss.

Lastly, with regard to the costs incurred in defending its case, the appellant claims; breach of the principle of the right to compensation for loss relating to the costs of technical and legal assistance and infringement of the principle of compensation for the expenses incurred in participating in the tendering procedure.