Case C-243/05 P: Appeal brought on 6 June 2005 by Agraz, SA and Others against the judgment delivered on 17 March 2005 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-285/03 between Agraz, SA and Others and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-08-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), appeal, fruit vegetable, indemnification, liability, production aid, vegetable product

C 193/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.8.2005

Appeal brought on 6 June 2005 by Agraz, SA and Others
against the judgment delivered on 17 March 2005 by the
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities in Case T-285/03 between Agraz, SA
and the Commission of
the European
and Others
Communities

(Case C-243/05 P)

(2005/C 193/31)

(Language of the case: French)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 March 2005
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-285/03 between Agraz, SA
and Others and the Commission of the European Communities
the European
was brought before the Court of
Communities on 6 June 2005 by Agraz, SA and Others, repre-
sented by José Luís da Cruz Vilaça and Dorothée Choussy,
lawyers.

Justice of

The appellants claim that the Court should:

1. set aside in part the judgment of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities of 17 March 2005 in so far
as it held that the damage was not specific and dismissed
the application; and, in a new decision,

2. principally, find that the conditions for the establishment of
the non-contractual liability of the Commission are satisfied
in this case; order the defendant to pay the balance of the
production aid to each of
the applicant companies (as
detailed in Annex A.27) together with interest at the rates
to be fixed by the Court of First Instance with effect from
12 July 2000 (or, in the alternative, from 13 July 2000 or,
in the further alternative, from 16 July 2000) up to the date
on which payment is actually made; and order the Commis-
sion to pay all of the costs in both sets of proceedings
including those incurred by the appellants;

3.

in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First
Instance for an adjudication on the amounts of the compen-
sation to be paid to the appellants, after they have been
heard again, and order the Commission to pay the costs
(including those incurred by the appellants) in the proceed-
ings on appeal and in the proceedings at
first instance
before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant companies rely on the following pleas in support
of their appeal:

In the first part, the appellants maintain that the Court of First
Instance failed to have regard to the case-law of the Com-
munity Courts, and also the principles established by the
judicial orders of the Member States in relation to
national
non-contractual civil liability, by misinterpreting the notion of
‘specific damage’ and by confusing the determination of the
nature of the damage with the calculation of the amount of the
damage.

In the second part, the appellants submit arguments designed
to demonstrate, in relation to the recognition of their right to
compensation, that the Court of First Instance did not draw the
necessary consequences from its findings in relation to the
unlawfulness of
in breaching
Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on
the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and
vegetable products, (1) or in relation to the principles of a duty
of care and sound administration.

the Commission's conduct

Second plea:: Breach of the inter partes principle and of the
appellants' right to be heard;

Third plea:: Distortion of the forms of order sought by the
appellants;

Fourth plea:: Disregard by the Court of First Instance of its
unlimited jurisdiction and of its duty to adjudicate; denial of
justice, in that the Court of First Instance omitted to draw the
necessary consequences from its findings in relation to the
fixing of the amount of the damage.

(1) OJ 1996 L 297, p. 29.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
Patent- und Markensenat by order of that adjudication
body of 9 February 2005 in Armin Häupl v Lidl Stiftung
& Co KG

(Case C-246/05)

(2005/C 193/32)

(Language of the case: German)

First plea:: Error of law,
in that the Court of First Instance
considered that the damage which the appellants sustained was
it could not constitute a
not specific and that, accordingly,
basis for their right to compensation.

This plea is in two parts:

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of
the Oberster Patent- und
Markensenat of 9 February 2005, received at the Court Registry
on 10 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Armin Häupl and Lidl Stiftung & Co KG on the
following questions: