EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/193/31
Case C-243/05 P: Appeal brought on 6 June 2005 by Agraz, SA and Others against the judgment delivered on 17 March 2005 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-285/03 between Agraz, SA and Others and the Commission of the European Communities
Case C-243/05 P: Appeal brought on 6 June 2005 by Agraz, SA and Others against the judgment delivered on 17 March 2005 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-285/03 between Agraz, SA and Others and the Commission of the European Communities
Case C-243/05 P: Appeal brought on 6 June 2005 by Agraz, SA and Others against the judgment delivered on 17 March 2005 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-285/03 between Agraz, SA and Others and the Commission of the European Communities
JO C 193, 6.8.2005, p. 20–20
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
6.8.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 193/20 |
Appeal brought on 6 June 2005 by Agraz, SA and Others against the judgment delivered on 17 March 2005 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-285/03 between Agraz, SA and Others and the Commission of the European Communities
(Case C-243/05 P)
(2005/C 193/31)
Language of the case: French
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 March 2005 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-285/03 between Agraz, SA and Others and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 June 2005 by Agraz, SA and Others, represented by José Luís da Cruz Vilaça and Dorothée Choussy, lawyers.
The appellants claim that the Court should:
|
1. |
set aside in part the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 17 March 2005 in so far as it held that the damage was not specific and dismissed the application; and, in a new decision, |
|
2. |
principally, find that the conditions for the establishment of the non-contractual liability of the Commission are satisfied in this case; order the defendant to pay the balance of the production aid to each of the applicant companies (as detailed in Annex A.27) together with interest at the rates to be fixed by the Court of First Instance with effect from 12 July 2000 (or, in the alternative, from 13 July 2000 or, in the further alternative, from 16 July 2000) up to the date on which payment is actually made; and order the Commission to pay all of the costs in both sets of proceedings including those incurred by the appellants; |
|
3. |
in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for an adjudication on the amounts of the compensation to be paid to the appellants, after they have been heard again, and order the Commission to pay the costs (including those incurred by the appellants) in the proceedings on appeal and in the proceedings at first instance before the Court of First Instance. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant companies rely on the following pleas in support of their appeal:
First plea:: Error of law, in that the Court of First Instance considered that the damage which the appellants sustained was not specific and that, accordingly, it could not constitute a basis for their right to compensation.
This plea is in two parts:
In the first part, the appellants maintain that the Court of First Instance failed to have regard to the case-law of the Community Courts, and also the principles established by the national judicial orders of the Member States in relation to non-contractual civil liability, by misinterpreting the notion of ‘specific damage’ and by confusing the determination of the nature of the damage with the calculation of the amount of the damage.
In the second part, the appellants submit arguments designed to demonstrate, in relation to the recognition of their right to compensation, that the Court of First Instance did not draw the necessary consequences from its findings in relation to the unlawfulness of the Commission's conduct in breaching Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products, (1) or in relation to the principles of a duty of care and sound administration.
Second plea:: Breach of the inter partes principle and of the appellants' right to be heard;
Third plea:: Distortion of the forms of order sought by the appellants;
Fourth plea:: Disregard by the Court of First Instance of its unlimited jurisdiction and of its duty to adjudicate; denial of justice, in that the Court of First Instance omitted to draw the necessary consequences from its findings in relation to the fixing of the amount of the damage.