Case C-188/06 P: Appeal brought on  12 April 2006  by Schneider Electric SA against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) made on  31 January 2006  in Case T-48/03, Schneider Electric SA v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), appeal, dominant position, economic concentration, electrical equipment, electricity supply, merger control

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/13

Appeal brought on 12 April 2006 by Schneider Electric
SA against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber) made on 31 January 2006 in Case T-48/03,
Schneider Electric SA v Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-188/06 P)

(2006/C 165/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Schneider Electric SA (represented by A. Winckler, I.
Girgenson and M. Pittie, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

Form of order sought

— Set aside, in accordance with Article 225(1) EC and Article
61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities, the order made by the Court of First Instance
on 31 January 2006 in Case T-48/03 Schneider Electric SA v
Commission of the European Communities;

— Refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a deci-

sion on the substance of the case;

of the present case, the decision of 4 December 2002 was in
any event liable to give rise to an action. Any other interpreta-
tion would lead to a veritable denial of justice.

Finally,
the decision to close proceedings may also be the
subject of an action for annulment, on the same basis as any
decision whereby the Commission significantly alters the legal
situation of the affected party.

(1) Commission Decision of 4 December 2002 on opening the close
examination phase in respect of the merger operation between
Schneider and Legrand (Case COMP/M. 2283-Schneider/Legrand II)
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1989 L
395, p. 1)

Appeal brought on 13 April 2006 by TEA-CEGOS, SA and
Services techniques globaux (STG) SA against the judg-
ment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber)
delivered on 14 February 2006 in Joined Cases T-376/05
and T-383/05 TEA-CEGOS, SA, STG SA and GHK
Consulting Ltd v Commission of the European Commu-
nities

(Case C-189/06 P)

(2006/C 165/23)

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Language of the case: French

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the order misinterprets the relevant
facts and is vitiated by errors of law.

Parties

Firstly, contrary to what the Court of First instance maintains,
the transfer of Legrand to the Wendel/KKR consortium did not
occur ‘spontaneously’ and did not ‘become irrevocable’ before
the decision of 4 December 2002 (1) was taken. In any event,
the fact that the operation was abandoned did not deprive
Schneider of its interest in bringing proceedings against the
decision.

the decision of 4 December 2002 constitutes in
Secondly,
the
reality a prohibition decision, particularly in light of
instructions given by the Court of First
Instance to the
Commission. Indeed, in its judgment of 22 October 2002 in
Schneider v Commission, the Court of First Instance clearly stated
that the Commission was to resume the control procedure
from the statement of objections stage.

Thirdly, on the assumption that the decision of 4 December
2002 does indeed constitute a decision to open Phase II, it is
still amenable to an action for annulment. Indeed, in so far as it
produces adverse effects, a decision taken on the basis of
Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation No 4064/89 (2) may be the subject
of an action for annulment. In the very specific circumstances

Appellants: TEA-CEGOS, SA, Services techniques globaux (STG)
SA (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: GHK Consulting Ltd, Commis-
sion of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of 14 February 2006 of the Court of
First Instance in Joined Cases T-376/05 and T-383/05;

— consequently, grant the appellants the relief they claimed at

first instance and, therefore,

— annul the decision of 12 October 2005 rejecting the candi-
dature and bid of the TEA-CEGOS consortium and with-
drawing the decision awarding the framework contract to
the TEA-CEGOS consortium under the call
for tenders
EuropeAid — 2/119860/C-LOT No 7;