# C_2005155EN.01000501.xml

| 25.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/5

---

Appeal brought on 15 April 2005 by L. Piau against the judgment delivered on 26 January 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-193/02 between L. Piau and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

(Case C-171/05 P)

(2005/C 155/10)

Language of the case: French

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 January 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-193/02 between L. Piau and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 January 2005 by L. Piau, represented by M. Fauconnet, avocat.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-193/02; |
| --- | --- |

1.

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-193/02;

| 2. | annul the decision of the European Commission of 15 April 2002; |
| --- | --- |

2.

annul the decision of the European Commission of 15 April 2002;

| 3. | give final judgment in the matter itself, by application of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, since the state of the proceedings so permits; |
| --- | --- |

3.

give final judgment in the matter itself, by application of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, since the state of the proceedings so permits;

| 4. | order FIFA to pay the costs of Case T-193/02 and of this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

4.

order FIFA to pay the costs of Case T-193/02 and of this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Infringement of the applicant's rights
  The Court of First Instance, by failing of its own motion to raise the question of the breach of Article 253 EC by the Commission, which failed to give reasons for its rejection of the applicant's complaint under Article 49 EC, failed to have regard to the powers attributed to it. Furthermore, the Court of First Instance infringed Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms because it failed to take into account some of the pleas advanced by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Infringement of the applicant's rights

The Court of First Instance, by failing of its own motion to raise the question of the breach of Article 253 EC by the Commission, which failed to give reasons for its rejection of the applicant's complaint under Article 49 EC, failed to have regard to the powers attributed to it. Furthermore, the Court of First Instance infringed Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms because it failed to take into account some of the pleas advanced by the applicant.

| 2. | Infringement of Article 81 EC
  In the absence of factual evidence regarding the necessary regulation of the profession and evidence showing the economic or technical progress of FIFA's regulation of players' agents, the decision of the Court of First Instance is without a legal basis. The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that there was no Community interest in pursuing the complaint, although the judgment had no legal basis and Article 81 EC had been infringed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Infringement of Article 81 EC

In the absence of factual evidence regarding the necessary regulation of the profession and evidence showing the economic or technical progress of FIFA's regulation of players' agents, the decision of the Court of First Instance is without a legal basis. The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that there was no Community interest in pursuing the complaint, although the judgment had no legal basis and Article 81 EC had been infringed.

| 3. | Infringement of Article 82 EC
  In the absence of enquiries by the Commission into the dominant position of FIFA and into possible abuse thereof, the Court of First Instance could not assume the role of the Commission, after having established the existence of that dominant position, and find that there was no abuse, erring in law and thus infringing Article 82 EC. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Infringement of Article 82 EC

In the absence of enquiries by the Commission into the dominant position of FIFA and into possible abuse thereof, the Court of First Instance could not assume the role of the Commission, after having established the existence of that dominant position, and find that there was no abuse, erring in law and thus infringing Article 82 EC.

| 4. | Contradictory and insufficient reasoning of the Court of First Instance amounting to a lack of reasoning as to the continuation of anti-competitive effects. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Contradictory and insufficient reasoning of the Court of First Instance amounting to a lack of reasoning as to the continuation of anti-competitive effects.

| 5. | Error in law as to the equivalence of the ‘FIFA diplomas’. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Error in law as to the equivalence of the ‘FIFA diplomas’.

| 6. | Infringement of the general principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Infringement of the general principle of legal certainty.

| 7. | Error in law as regards the task and powers of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Error in law as regards the task and powers of the Commission.

| 8. | Infringement of Article 39 EC. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Infringement of Article 39 EC.

| 9. | Infringement of Article 49 EC. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Infringement of Article 49 EC.

| 10. | Error in law as regards the definition of Community interest. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Error in law as regards the definition of Community interest.

---