# C_2007117EN.01000502.xml

| 26.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/5

---

Appeal brought on 27 February 2007 by Selex Sistemi Integrati S.p.A. against the judgment delivered on 12 December 2006 in Case T-155/04 Selex Sistemi Integrati S.p.A. v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-113/07 P)

(2007/C 117/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Selex Sistemi Integrati S.p.A. (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and D. Fioretti, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Eurocontrol — European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation

Other parties to the proceedings:

Forms of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 12 December 2006 in Case T-155/04 and refer the case back to that Court for a ruling on the merits in the light of guidance provided by the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 12 December 2006 in Case T-155/04 and refer the case back to that Court for a ruling on the merits in the light of guidance provided by the Court of Justice;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings, and those of the proceedings in Case T-155/04. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings, and those of the proceedings in Case T-155/04.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the forms of order sought, the appellant alleges a number of errors in law in relation both to the procedure and to the merits.

Errors in law in relation to the procedure

By way of errors in law on the part of the Court of First Instance in relation to the procedure, the appellant alleges:

| — | infringement of Article 116(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in so far as that Court authorised communication of the pleadings to Eurocontrol and permitted the latter to lodge written pleadings; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 116(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in so far as that Court authorised communication of the pleadings to Eurocontrol and permitted the latter to lodge written pleadings;

| — | infringement of Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in so far as the facts on the basis of which the new pleas adduced by the appellant were ruled inadmissible were distorted; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in so far as the facts on the basis of which the new pleas adduced by the appellant were ruled inadmissible were distorted;

| — | infringement of Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in so far as the Commission's conduct vis-à-vis the facts on the basis of which the new pleas adduced by the appellant were ruled inadmissible was not taken into consideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in so far as the Commission's conduct vis-à-vis the facts on the basis of which the new pleas adduced by the appellant were ruled inadmissible was not taken into consideration;

| — | infringement of Article 66(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in so far as no order was made in relation to the request for measures of inquiry. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 66(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in so far as no order was made in relation to the request for measures of inquiry.

Errors in law in relation to the merits

By way of errors in law in relation to the applicability of Article 82 EC to the assistance given by Eurocontrol to national administrations, the appellant alleges:

| — | distortion of the content of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

distortion of the content of the contested decision;

| — | the contradictory nature of the reasons given for not annulling the contested decision despite the fact that the first plea in law adduced by the applicant was upheld; |
| --- | --- |

—

the contradictory nature of the reasons given for not annulling the contested decision despite the fact that the first plea in law adduced by the applicant was upheld;

| — | the contradictory nature of the reasoning, in so far as the Court of First Instance substituted its own reasoning for that used by the Commission in the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

the contradictory nature of the reasoning, in so far as the Court of First Instance substituted its own reasoning for that used by the Commission in the contested decision;

| — | failure to comply with established Community case-law concerning the limits of judicial review; |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to comply with established Community case-law concerning the limits of judicial review;

| — | manifest error of assessment as regards the infringement of Article 82 EC. |
| --- | --- |

—

manifest error of assessment as regards the infringement of Article 82 EC.

As regards the errors in law in relation to the applicability of Article 82 EC to Eurocontrol's standardisation activities, the appellant alleges:

| — | distortion of the content of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

distortion of the content of the contested decision;

| — | adoption of a notion of economic activity incompatible with that developed by the Community case-law; |
| --- | --- |

—

adoption of a notion of economic activity incompatible with that developed by the Community case-law;

| — | misinterpretation and misapplication of the Community case-law concerning social welfare benefits; |
| --- | --- |

—

misinterpretation and misapplication of the Community case-law concerning social welfare benefits;

| — | breach of the obligation to provide a sufficient statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the obligation to provide a sufficient statement of reasons.

As regards the errors in law in relation to the applicability of Article 82 EC to Eurocontrol's research and development activities (in particular, the acquisition of prototypes and the regime of intellectual property rights), the appellant alleges:

| — | manifest distortion of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

manifest distortion of the contested decision;

| — | adoption of a notion of economic activity incompatible with that developed by the Community case-law; |
| --- | --- |

—

adoption of a notion of economic activity incompatible with that developed by the Community case-law;

| — | misrepresentation and distortion of the evidence adduced by the appellant concerning the economic nature of Eurocontrol's management of the regime of intellectual property rights. |
| --- | --- |

—

misrepresentation and distortion of the evidence adduced by the appellant concerning the economic nature of Eurocontrol's management of the regime of intellectual property rights.

---