# C_2004106EN.01002702.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/27

---

Appeal brought on 3 March 2004 (fax of 25 February 2004) by Adriatica di Navigazione SpA against the judgment delivered on 11 December 2003 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-61/99 between Adriatica di Navigazione SpA and the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-111/04 P)

(2004/C 106/47)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 December 2003 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-61/99 between Adriatica di Navigazione SpA and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 March 2004 by Adriatica di Navigazione SpA, represented by Mario Siragusa and Francesca Maria Moretti.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| 1 – | Rectify the judgment in so far as it held that the erroneous definition of the relevant market did not have adverse consequences for Adriatica, recognising that the company was found, without an adequate statement of reasons, to have participated in an infringement which it did not commit in so far as it concerns a trade in which it did not take part; |
| --- | --- |

1 –

Rectify the judgment in so far as it held that the erroneous definition of the relevant market did not have adverse consequences for Adriatica, recognising that the company was found, without an adequate statement of reasons, to have participated in an infringement which it did not commit in so far as it concerns a trade in which it did not take part;

| 2 – | Rectify the judgment in so far as it held that the overall conduct of Adriatica, following the meeting of 24 November 1993, was not such as validly to dissociate it for the purposes of exonerating it from liability for the collusive behaviour found to have taken place; |
| --- | --- |

2 –

Rectify the judgment in so far as it held that the overall conduct of Adriatica, following the meeting of 24 November 1993, was not such as validly to dissociate it for the purposes of exonerating it from liability for the collusive behaviour found to have taken place;

| 3 – | On the basis of the second plea in law set out below, rectify the judgment in so far as it confirms the duration of the infringement committed by Adriatica, reducing the period of the infringement ascribed to it; |
| --- | --- |

3 –

On the basis of the second plea in law set out below, rectify the judgment in so far as it confirms the duration of the infringement committed by Adriatica, reducing the period of the infringement ascribed to it;

| 4 – | On the basis of the first plea in law set out below, reduce the penalty imposed on Adriatica by the Court of First Instance; |
| --- | --- |

4 –

On the basis of the first plea in law set out below, reduce the penalty imposed on Adriatica by the Court of First Instance;

| 5 – | On the basis of the first, second and third pleas in law set out below, reduce the penalty imposed on Adriatica in the light of the lesser gravity and shorter duration of the infringement committed by it; |
| --- | --- |

5 –

On the basis of the first, second and third pleas in law set out below, reduce the penalty imposed on Adriatica in the light of the lesser gravity and shorter duration of the infringement committed by it;

| 6 – | In the alternative, and independently of the other pleas in law, rectify the judgment in so far as the Court of First Instance erred in calculating the reduction in the fine to be accorded to Adriatica, thereby reducing the fine; |
| --- | --- |

6 –

In the alternative, and independently of the other pleas in law, rectify the judgment in so far as the Court of First Instance erred in calculating the reduction in the fine to be accorded to Adriatica, thereby reducing the fine;

| 7 – | Order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

7 –

Order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

| — | Infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and erroneous application of the law in respect of the failure to assess the consequences, in Adriatica's case, of the incorrect definition of the relevant market given by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and erroneous application of the law in respect of the failure to assess the consequences, in Adriatica's case, of the incorrect definition of the relevant market given by the Commission;

| — | Infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and erroneous application of the law in the assessment of the existence of the requirements for the dissociation of Adriatica from the infringement; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and erroneous application of the law in the assessment of the existence of the requirements for the dissociation of Adriatica from the infringement;

| — | Infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 19 of Regulation No 4056/86 (1) in determining the duration and gravity of the infringement ascribable to Adriatica; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 19 of Regulation No 4056/86 (1) in determining the duration and gravity of the infringement ascribable to Adriatica;

1

| — | In the alternative, infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 19 of Regulation No 4056/86 and a failure adequately to state reasons in determining the fine to be imposed on Adriatica. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 19 of Regulation No 4056/86 and a failure adequately to state reasons in determining the fine to be imposed on Adriatica.

---

(1)  OJ 1986 L 378 of 31.12.1986, p. 4.

1

---