Case C-341/06 P: Appeal brought on 4 August 2006 by Chronopost SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 June 2006 in Case T-613/97 Union française de l'express (Ufex) and Others v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, General Court (EU), State aid, appeal, customs procedure suspending duties, postal service, stamp duty, subsidiary

C 249/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.10.2006

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

— declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive
2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental
information
Directive
repealing
90/313/EEC (1), or by not informing the Commission of
such provisions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that directive;

Council

and

98/365/EC of 1 October 1997 (1) on the ground of inade-
quate reasoning and failure to apply the concept of State
aid;

— endorse the remainder of the judgment of the Court of First
Instance, give final
judgment without referring the case
back to the Court of First Instance, and affirm the legality
of Commission Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997;

— order the applicants at first instance to pay the entire costs.

— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired
on 14 February 2005.

The applicant puts forward three grounds of appeal.

(1) OJ 2003 L 41, pp. 26-32

Appeal brought on 4 August 2006 by Chronopost SA
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 June
2006 in Case T-613/97 Union française de l'express (Ufex)
and Others v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-341/06 P)

(2006/C 249/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Chronopost SA (represented by: D. Berlin, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities, French Republic, La Poste, Union française de
l'express (Ufex), DHL International SA, Federal express interna-
tional (France) SNC, CRIE SA

By its first ground of appeal, the applicant alleges an infringe-
ment, by the Court of First Instance, of the general principles
of Community law and, in particular, of the right to a fair trial
in so far as that Court did not provide all of the necessary guar-
antees of impartiality as the judge who acted as Rapporteur in
the contested judgment of 7 June 2006 was also a member of
the Chamber which adopted the judgment — annulled by the
Court — in Case T-613/97 Ufex and Others v Commission
[2000] ECR II-4055.

By its second ground of appeal, the applicant alleges that the
Court exceeded its competence and infringed Articles 230 EC
and 253 EC in that it carried out, in the guise of a review of
the statement of reasons provided, a review of the substance of
Commission Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997
concerning alleged State aid granted by France to SFMI-Chrono-
post (OJ 1998, L 164, p. 37) and of the allegedly manifest
errors of assessment which the Commission made in the exer-
cise of its discretion. The applicant also alleges that the Court
substituted its own assessment for that of the Commission,
thereby exceeding its competence and causing another infringe-
ment of Articles 230 and 253 EC.

By its third ground of appeal, the applicant finally alleges that
the Court made several errors of law by comparing the conduct
of a public undertaking benefiting from a reserved sector to
that of a private undertaking, by applying to the creation of an
undertaking by a parent company the case-law concerning the
relationships between parent companies and existing subsidi-
aries and concluding that SFMI was given an advantage,
resulting from the transfer to its books of Postadex's customers.
For these various reasons, the Court infringed Article 87 EC.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) OJ 1998 L 164, p. 37

— quash the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June
annuls Commission Decision

2006 inasmuch as

it