Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2006/108/10

    Case C-120/06P: Appeal brought on 27 February 2006 by Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Mentecchio SpA (FIAMM), Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Montecchio Technologies Inc (FIAMM Technologies) against the judgment delivered on 14 December 2005 in Case T-69/00 Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Mentecchio SpA (FIAMM), Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Montecchio Technologies Inc (FIAMM Technologies) v Council of the European Union and Commission of the Euorpean Communities

    ĠU C 108, 6.5.2006, p. 6–7 (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 108/6


    Appeal brought on 27 February 2006 by Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Mentecchio SpA (FIAMM), Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Montecchio Technologies Inc (FIAMM Technologies) against the judgment delivered on 14 December 2005 in Case T-69/00 Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Mentecchio SpA (FIAMM), Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Montecchio Technologies Inc (FIAMM Technologies) v Council of the European Union and Commission of the Euorpean Communities

    (Case C-120/06P)

    (2006/C 108/10)

    Language of the case: Italian

    Parties

    Appellants: Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Mentecchio SpA (FIAMM), Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Montecchio Technologies Inc (FIAMM Technologies) (represented by: I. Van Bael, F. Di Gianni and A Cevese, Avvocati)

    Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

    Form of order sought

    On the basis that the state of the proceedings so permits, give a substantive ruling confirming the appellants' entitlement to compensation arising out of the defendants' liability for an unlawful act or for a lawful act;

    in any event, order the defendants to pay the costs both of these proceedings and those before the Court of First Instance;

    in the alternative, grant the appellants fair compensation as a result of the unreasonable length of the procedure before the Court of First Instance;

    grant such further and other relief as fairness might require.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The appellants submit that the judgment under appeal is defective in that it fails totally to state grounds concerning one of the principal arguments raised, namely, that in the specific factual circumstances of the case, the appellants are entitled to rely on the decision adopted by the Appeal Board of the World Trade Organisation to establish unlawful conduct on the part of the Community for the purpose of their claim for compensation.


    Top