Case C-519/04 P: Appeal brought on 22 December 2004 by D. Meca-Medina and I. Majcen against the judgment delivered on 30 September 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-313/02 between D. Meca-Medina and I. Majcen, and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Republic of Finland
Date: 2005-03-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), judicial proceedings, performance drugs, rights of the defence, sporting event, sports body

C 57/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.3.2005

The Commission's action relates to the failure on the part of
the Greek Government to establish and apply a system of strict
protection for the species of reptile Vipera schweizeri (viper) on
the island of Milos.

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30
September 2004 in Case T-313/02, against which the
appeal has been brought;

The Commission requests the Court to declare that, by failing
to take the necessary measures for the establishment and appli-
cation of an effective system of strict protection for the viper
Vipera schweizeri on the island of Milos in order to avoid any
deliberate disturbance of the species, particularly during the
period of breeding, rearing and hibernation, and any deteriora-
the
tion or destruction of breeding sites or resting places,
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under
Article 12(1)(b) and (d) of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conser-
vation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

(1) OJ No L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Appeal brought on 22 December 2004 by D. Meca-Medina
and I. Majcen against
the judgment delivered on 30
September 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-313/
02 between D. Meca-Medina and I. Majcen, and the
Commission of the European Communities, supported by
the Republic of Finland

(Case C-519/04 P)

(2005/C 57/31)

(Language of the case: French)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 September
2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Commu-
nities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-313/02 between D. Meca-
Medina and I. Majcen, and the Commission of the European
Communities, supported by the Republic of Finland, was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 22 December 2004 (fax: 20.12.2004) by D. Meca-
Medina and I. Majcen, represented by J.- L. Dupont and M.- A.
Lucas, lawyers.

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— grant the form of order sought by the appellants in the

Court of First Instance;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings

at both instances.

Pleas on appeal and main arguments

The judgement of the Court of First Instance infringes Articles
49 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC, as interpreted by the Court of Justice.

Firstly, the Court of First Instance was wrong to hold that those
provisions apply only to rules laid down in the field of sport
which concern the economic aspect of sport, to the exclusion
of purely sporting rules. The Court of Justice has not laid down
such a general exclusion of purely sporting rules from the
scope of the provisions of the Treaty, that exclusion being
limited to the rules relating to the composition and training of
national teams.

The Court of First Instance was also wrong to hold that that
the anti-doping legislation is based on purely sporting consid-
erations when it accepted that such legislation may pursue an
economic objective. The Court of First Instance thereby made
materially inaccurate factual findings, contradicted itself in the
grounds, which are moreover inadequate, and erred in its legal
characterisation of the facts.

Furthermore, by holding that that the legislation at issue falls
outside the scope of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC, the Court of
First Instance infringed those articles.

Finally, the Court of First Instance committed a breach of the
procedural rules and more specifically the rights of the defence,
by holding that the Commission's analysis of the legislation at
issue in its decision rejecting the complaint is superfluous,
when it is apparent from that decision that the Commission
had regarded that legislation as falling within the scope of the
provisions of the EC Treaty. The Court of First Instance thereby
infringed the rights of the defence of the appellants, who were
not able to present their point of view on that question.