Case C-111/04 P: Appealbrought on 3 March 2004 (fax of 25February 2004) by Adriatica di Navigazione SpA against the judgmentdelivered on 11 December 2003 by the Fifth Chamberof the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-61/99between Adriatica di Navigazione SpA and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition law, fixing of prices, maritime transport, price agreement, restrictive trade practice

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/27

Appeal brought on 1 March 2004 by Strintzis Lines Ship-
ping SA 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-65/99 between
Strintzis Lines Shipping SA and the Commission.

(Case C-110/04 P)

(2004/C 106/46)

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-65/99 between Strintzis
Lines Shipping SA and the Commission was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 March
2004 by Strintzis Lines Shipping SA, represented by Andreas
Kalogeropoulos, Konstantinos Adamopoulos and Eliza Petritsi,
of the Athens Bar, and Morten Nissen, of the Danish Bar.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of the European
Communities of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding
pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.466 - Greek
Ferries), giving final judgment on that claim in the appel-
lant's favour;

— in the alternative, if it does not annul the abovementioned
Commission decision, annul or in any event significantly
reduce the fine of EUR 1.5 million imposed by the
Commission on the appellant in Article 2 of that decision,
giving final
judgment on that claim in the appellant's
favour;

— order the Commission to pay the entire costs incurred by
Strintzis both before the Court of First Instance and before
the Court of Justice.

Grounds of appeal

1. First ground of appeal – infringement of Community law by
the Court of First Instance which held that the Commission
fully obeyed the law as regards both the investigation
authorisations which it granted and the manner in which it
subsequently conducted the investigation, in particular:

— the Court of First Instance misinterpreted Community law
in holding that ETA had a duty to cooperate in the carrying
out of the investigation;

— the Court of First Instance misapplied and misinterpreted
Community law when defining the limits of the Commis-
sion's
the
investigatory powers and in holding that
Commission was correct in insisting on carrying out the
investigation when it realised that ETA was a separate legal
entity;

— the Court of First Instance misapplied and misinterpreted
Community law in its findings as to whether the rights of
the defence were respected and whether there was excessive
interference on the part of the public authorities in the
sphere of ETA's activities.

2. Second ground of appeal – infringement of Community law
by the Court of First Instance which held that Article 85 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) was applied correctly.

Appeal brought on 3 March 2004 (fax of 25 February
2004) by Adriatica di Navigazione SpA against the judg-
ment 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 Navi-
the European
gazione SpA and the Commission of

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 Navi-
gazione SpA, represented by Mario Siragusa and Francesca
Maria Moretti.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— the Court of First Instance misapplied Community law in
holding that the Commission's decision ordering an investi-
gation enabled European Trust Agencies (ETA) to compre-
hend the scope of its duty to cooperate with the Commis-
sion;

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;

C 106/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

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;

Appeal brought on 3 March 2004 by Marlines SA 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-56/99 between Marlines SA and
the Commission.

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;

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;

(Case C-112/04 P)

(2004/C 106/48)

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-56/99 between Marlines SA
and the Commission was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 3 March 2004 by Marlines SA,
represented by Dimitrios Papatheofanous and Adamantia
Anagnostou, of the Athens Bar.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— allow the appeal;

— set aside the contested judgment;

— make a decision in accordance with the law;

— order the Commission to pay the costs before both courts.

7 – Order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance

and on appeal.

Grounds of 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 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;

— 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. Breach of the duty to state reasons.

2. Failure to observe the rules of logic and lessons derived

from common experience.

3. Unreasoned (or implicit) rejection of the applicant's request

that witnesses be examined.

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 Euro-
pean 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 Elektro-
technisch Gebied and Technische Unie BV v Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities, supported by CEF City Electrical Factors BV
and CEF Holdings Ltd.