# C_2006165EN.01001301.xml

| 15.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/13

---

Appeal brought on 12 April 2006 by Schneider Electric SA against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) made on 31 January 2006 in Case T-48/03, Schneider Electric SA v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-188/06 P)

(2006/C 165/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Schneider Electric SA (represented by A. Winckler, I. Girgenson and M. Pittie, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside, in accordance with Article 225(1) EC and Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, the order made by the Court of First Instance on 31 January 2006 in Case T-48/03 Schneider Electric SA v Commission of the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside, in accordance with Article 225(1) EC and Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, the order made by the Court of First Instance on 31 January 2006 in Case T-48/03 Schneider Electric SA v Commission of the European Communities;

Schneider Electric SA

Commission of the European Communities

| — | Refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a decision on the substance of the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a decision on the substance of the case;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the order misinterprets the relevant facts and is vitiated by errors of law.

Firstly, contrary to what the Court of First instance maintains, the transfer of Legrand to the Wendel/KKR consortium did not occur ‘spontaneously’ and did not ‘become irrevocable’ before the decision of 4 December 2002 (1) was taken. In any event, the fact that the operation was abandoned did not deprive Schneider of its interest in bringing proceedings against the decision.

1

Secondly, the decision of 4 December 2002 constitutes in reality a prohibition decision, particularly in light of the instructions given by the Court of First Instance to the Commission. Indeed, in its judgment of 22 October 2002 in Schneider v Commission, the Court of First Instance clearly stated that the Commission was to resume the control procedure from the statement of objections stage.

Schneider

Commission

Thirdly, on the assumption that the decision of 4 December 2002 does indeed constitute a decision to open Phase II, it is still amenable to an action for annulment. Indeed, in so far as it produces adverse effects, a decision taken on the basis of Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation No 4064/89 (2) may be the subject of an action for annulment. In the very specific circumstances of the present case, the decision of 4 December 2002 was in any event liable to give rise to an action. Any other interpretation would lead to a veritable denial of justice.

2

Finally, the decision to close proceedings may also be the subject of an action for annulment, on the same basis as any decision whereby the Commission significantly alters the legal situation of the affected party.

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 4 December 2002 on opening the close examination phase in respect of the merger operation between Schneider and Legrand (Case COMP/M. 2283-Schneider/Legrand II)

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1)

2

---