Case C-359/01 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2001 by British Sugar plc against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-202/98, T-204/98 and T-207/98 between Tate & Lyle plc, British Sugar plc, Napier Brown & Co. Ltd and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), fine, infringement of EU law, restriction on competition, sugar industry

C 317/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.11.2001

Appeal brought on 21 September 2001 by British Sugar
plc against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2001 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities
in Joined Cases T-202/98,
T-204/98 and T-207/98 (1) between Tate & Lyle plc, British
Sugar plc, Napier Brown & Co. Ltd and the Commission
of the European Communities

(Case C-359/01 P)

(2001/C 317/36)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2001 by
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Joined Cases T-202/98, T-204/98
and T-207/98 between Tate & Lyle plc, British Sugar plc,
Napier Brown & Co. Ltd and the Commission of the European
Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 21 September 2001 by British
Sugar plc, represented by Messrs Thomas Sharpe QG, Daniel
Jowell, barrister, et Alex Nourry, solicitor, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should find that:

1)

the agreement/concerted practice was not capable of
having an effect on trade between Member States; alterna-
tively

2)

the fine imposed was disproportionate

and seeks an order in the following terms:

1)

2)

that the Judgment of the Court of First Instance be set
aside: and

the contested Decision be annulled in whole, or alterna-
tively in part; alternatively

3) Articles 3 and 4 of the contested Decision be annulled or

the fine reduced; and

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the facts relied upon by the Court
of First Instance fail to establish that the agreement/concerted
practice in question was capable of having an effect on inter-
State trade. The Court of First Instance also failed to have
sufficient regard to the structure of the relevant market, a
factor which, according to the Appellant, ought to have been
taken into account as a mitigating factor. The Appellant
therefore maintains that, on the basis of the fact and law as
found by the Court of First Instance, that Court ought to have
held that the fine imposed by the Commission was grossly
disproportionate.

(1) OJ C 48, 20.2.1999, p. 29-30.

Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-362/01)

(2001/C 317/37)

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
the European Communities on 24 September
Justice of
2001 by the Commission of the Europe an Communities,
represented by Karen Banks, acting as agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant requests that the Court should:

1)

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
European Parliament and Council Directive 98/5/EC of
16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession
of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other
than that in which the qualification was obtained (1), or
in any event by failing to inform the Commission of
those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that Directive.

2)

order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 249 EC under which a directive shall be binding as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
expired on 14 March 2000 without Ireland having enacted the
provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred to
in the conclusions of the Commission.

4)

the Commission pay British Sugar’s costs incurred in
relation to this Appeal and the costs relating to Case,
T-204/98 including those relating to the proceedings for
interim relief.

(1) OJ L 77, 14.3.1998, p. 36-43.