# C_2017151EN.01002501.xml

| 15.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/25

---

Appeal brought on 17 March 2017 by the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 10 January 2017 in Case T-577/14, Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v European Union

(Case C-138/17 P)

(2017/C 151/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and Á.M. Almendros Manzano, acting as agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, Gascogne, European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | set aside paragraph 1 of the operative part of the contested judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside paragraph 1 of the operative part of the contested judgment;

| — | dismiss as unfounded Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne’s claim, made at first instance, seeking a sum of EUR 187 571 for losses allegedly suffered as a result of making additional bank guarantee payments beyond a reasonable period; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss as unfounded Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne’s claim, made at first instance, seeking a sum of EUR 187 571 for losses allegedly suffered as a result of making additional bank guarantee payments beyond a reasonable period;

| — | order Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds.

The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in the interpretation of the concept of ‘causal link’, since the General Court found that the failure to give judgment within a reasonable period was the determining cause of the alleged material damage consisting in the payment of bank guarantee costs, although, according to settled case-law, an undertaking’s own choice not to pay a fine during the proceedings before the judicature of the European Union is the determining cause of the payment of such costs.

The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law in the interpretation of the concept of harm, since the General Court refused to apply to the alleged material damage linked to the payment of bank guarantee costs the same condition as it had set out in respect of the alleged material damage linked to the payment of interest on the amount of the fine, namely that the applicants at first instance had to demonstrate that the financial burden linked to that latter payment was greater than the advantage that they drew from the failure to pay the fine.

The third ground of appeal alleges an error in law in determining the period during which the alleged material damage occurred as well as a failure to state reasons, since the General Court considered, without explaining the reason, that the period during which the alleged material damage consisting in the payment of the bank guarantee costs occurred could be different to the period in which it had placed the unlawful conduct which allegedly caused that harm.

---