You are on page 1of 1

C 193/20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 6.8.

2005

Appeal brought on 6 June 2005 by Agraz, SA and Others In the first part, the appellants maintain that the Court of First
against the judgment delivered on 17 March 2005 by the Instance failed to have regard to the case-law of the Com-
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the Euro- munity Courts, and also the principles established by the
pean Communities in Case T-285/03 between Agraz, SA national judicial orders of the Member States in relation to
and Others and the Commission of the European non-contractual civil liability, by misinterpreting the notion of
Communities ‘specific damage’ and by confusing the determination of the
nature of the damage with the calculation of the amount of the
damage.
(Case C-243/05 P)

In the second part, the appellants submit arguments designed


(2005/C 193/31) 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
(Language of the case: French) 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
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 March 2005 of care and sound administration.
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 Second plea:: Breach of the inter partes principle and of the
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European appellants' right to be heard;
Communities on 6 June 2005 by Agraz, SA and Others, repre-
sented by José Luís da Cruz Vilaça and Dorothée Choussy,
Third plea:: Distortion of the forms of order sought by the
lawyers.
appellants;
The appellants claim that the Court should:
Fourth plea:: Disregard by the Court of First Instance of its
1. set aside in part the judgment of the Court of First Instance unlimited jurisdiction and of its duty to adjudicate; denial of
of the European Communities of 17 March 2005 in so far justice, in that the Court of First Instance omitted to draw the
as it held that the damage was not specific and dismissed necessary consequences from its findings in relation to the
the application; and, in a new decision, fixing of the amount of the damage.

2. principally, find that the conditions for the establishment of


the non-contractual liability of the Commission are satisfied (1) OJ 1996 L 297, p. 29.
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 Commis-
sion to pay all of the costs in both sets of proceedings
including those incurred by the appellants; Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
Patent- und Markensenat by order of that adjudication
3. in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First body of 9 February 2005 in Armin Häupl v Lidl Stiftung
Instance for an adjudication on the amounts of the compen- & Co KG
sation 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 proceed- (Case C-246/05)
ings on appeal and in the proceedings at first instance
before the Court of First Instance.
(2005/C 193/32)
Pleas in law and main arguments
(Language of the case: German)
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 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
considered that the damage which the appellants sustained was pean Communities by order of the Oberster Patent- und
not specific and that, accordingly, it could not constitute a Markensenat of 9 February 2005, received at the Court Registry
basis for their right to compensation. on 10 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Armin Häupl and Lidl Stiftung & Co KG on the
This plea is in two parts: following questions: