# C_2004106EN.01002802.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/28

---

Appeal brought on 3 March 2004 by Technische Unie BV against the judgment of 16 December 2003 by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Joined Cases T-5/00 and T-6/00 Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied and Technische Unie BV v Commission of the European Communities, supported by CEF City Electrical Factors BV and CEF Holdings Ltd.

(Case C-113/04 P)

(2004/C 106/49)

An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 March 2004 by Technische Unie BV, represented by P.V.F. Bos and C. Hubert, advocaten, against the judgment of 16 December 2003 delivered by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Joined Cases T–5/00 and T-6/00 Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied and Technische Unie BV v Commission of the European Communities, supported by CEF City Electrical Factors BV and CEF Holdings Ltd.

Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied

Technische Unie BV

Commission of the European Communities,

CEF City Electrical Factors BV

CEF Holdings Ltd.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| (1) | set aside the judgment of 16 December 2003 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T–5/00 and T-6/00, at least in so far as it relates to Case T-6/00, and, regard being had to the form of order sought under (2), dispose of the case itself or, in the alternative, set the judgment aside and refer the matter back to the Court of First Instance for further consideration; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

set aside the judgment of 16 December 2003 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T–5/00 and T-6/00, at least in so far as it relates to Case T-6/00, and, regard being had to the form of order sought under (2), dispose of the case itself or, in the alternative, set the judgment aside and refer the matter back to the Court of First Instance for further consideration;

| (2) | annul in its entirety, or at least in part, the decision of the European Commission of 26 October 1999 addressed to Technische Unie, or at least, ruling afresh, decide to reduce substantially the fine imposed on the appellant; and |
| --- | --- |

(2)

annul in its entirety, or at least in part, the decision of the European Commission of 26 October 1999 addressed to Technische Unie, or at least, ruling afresh, decide to reduce substantially the fine imposed on the appellant; and

| (3) | order the European Commission to pay all costs of the proceedings, including those of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

order the European Commission to pay all costs of the proceedings, including those of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In the first place, the Court of First Instance infringed EC law and/or the European Convention on Human Rights, and at any rate provided incomprehensible reasoning in that regard, in ruling that the fact that the period within which the procedure was concluded went beyond what was reasonable could not justify annulment of the Commission decision or an additional reduction in the fine.

Second, the Court of First Instance breached Community law, inasmuch as there is internal inconsistency and thus a lack of proper reasoning with regard to the equivocal manner in which it attached significance to the date on which the warning letter was issued.

Third, the Court of First Instance demonstrated misconstruction of the law, or at any rate provided incomprehensible reasoning, in ruling that the Commission would have had good grounds for finding Technische Unie liable for the infringements referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of the decision.

Fourth, the Court of First Instance demonstrated misconstruction of the law, or at any rate provided defective reasoning, in treating earlier the breaches referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of the decision as (continuing) breaches over the periods taken into account and in subsequently taking into account, for the duration of the breach referred to in Article 3 of the decision, the same periods as those which related to the breaches mentioned earlier.

Fifth, the Court of First Instance demonstrated misconstruction of the law, or at any rate provided inadequate reasoning, in not allowing an additional reduction in the fine, notwithstanding the misappraisal of the duration of the breaches and the infringement of the principle that proceedings must be concluded within a reasonable period.

---