Case C-461/06P: Appeal brought on 18 November 2006 by Elliniki Etairia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE (AEPI). against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) made on 5 September 2006 in Case T-242/05 AEPI v Commission
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), Greece, action for annulment (EU), appeal, competition law, copyright, inter-company agreement, management, music

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/45

2. Is dismissal notified after the period of protection provided
for in Article 10 of Directive 92/85, but which is not unre-
lated to the pregnancy and/or the birth of a child, contrary
to Article 2(1)
(or 5(1)) of Directive 76/207/EEC of 9
February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
employment,
and
training
working conditions (2), and, in such a case, must the sanction
be at least equivalent to that laid down by national law in
execution of Article 10 of Directive 92/85?

and promotion,

vocational

(1) OJ L 348, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 39, p. 40.

Appeal brought on 18 November 2006 by Elliniki Etairia
pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE (AEPI).
against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber) made on 5 September 2006 in Case T-242/05
AEPI v Commission

(Case C-461/06P)

(2006/C 326/91)

Language of the case: Greek

— order the respondent to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The grounds of the appeal are:

the European Communities without

(a) The decision under appeal dismissed the application and
accepted the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commis-
sion of
taking into
account the individual right to legal protection which arises
in every case in which a citizen brings a case before a court;
his case must be judged in its entirety and to its full extent
and the decision handed down must contain sufficient and
lawful reasons.

(b) Although it is accepted that in matters of infringement of
the competition rules the Commission of
the European
Communities is recognized as having discretion as to the
action it will take, nevertheless the decision under appeal
did not examine whether the Commission remained within
the permissible limits of its discretion or exceeded those
limits, given the fact that in any event no administrative
service is allowed to act ultra vires.

(c) It was wholly impermissible for the decision under appeal
to accept that the Commission of the European Commu-
nities may act without any supervision in the area of infrin-
gement of the principles of competition and, if it is called to
account for its actions, is able to avoid doing so by simply
raising a plea of inadmissibility.

Parties

Appellant: Elliniki Etairia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idiokti-
sias (AEPI) AE (represented by: Theodoros K. Asprogerakas-
Grivas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassa-
tion (France) lodged on 20 November 2006 — Glaxos-
mithkline et Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline v Jean-Pierre
Rouard

(Case C-462/06)

(2006/C 326/92)

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

— hold the appeal admissible;

— set aside the contested order No 303852 of 5 September
the European
in Case T-242/05 in its

2006 of
Communities (Fourth Chamber)
entirety;

the Court of First

Instance of

Referring court

Cour de cassation

— hear and determine our action of 4 June 2005 (pursuant to
Article 230 of the EU Treaty) before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities itself, or send it back
in
to the Court which issued the decision under appeal
order for it to be held admissible on the grounds specified.

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Glaxosmithkline et Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline

Respondent: Jean-Pierre Rouard