Case T-266/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2007 — CB v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bankcards — Decision ordering an investigation — Article 14(3) of Regulation No 17 — Statement of reasons — Proportionality)
Date: 2007-08-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), electronic money, principle of proportionality

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/29

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2007 —
CB v Commission

Defendant: Council of
M. Bishop and S. Marquardt, Agents)

the European Union (represented by:

(Case T-266/03) (1)

(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
— Bankcards — Decision ordering an investigation —
Article 14(3) of Regulation No 17 — Statement of reasons —
Proportionality)

(2007/C 199/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) (Paris, France)
(represented by: A. Georges and J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: initially T. Christoforou and O. Beynet and then by
T. Christoforou and F. Arbault, Agents)

Re:

Firstly, action for
the annulment of Commission Decision
C(2003) 1524/9 of 7 May 2003 in Case COMP/D1/38.606
ordering Groupement des cartes bancaires and its subsidiaries to
submit to an investigation under Article 14(3) of Council Regu-
lation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles [81] and
[82] of
I
Chapter 1959-1962, p. 87), as amended, and, secondly, action
from the file of all documents and other
for the removal
evidence brought to the knowledge of the Commission during
the investigation and for their return to the applicant

the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition, Series

Re:

Annulment in part, first, of Council Decision 2003/480/EC of
27 June 2003 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC)
No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against
certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism
and repealing Decision 2002/974/EC (OJ 2003 L 160, p. 81),
and, second, of Council Decision 2003/646/EC of 12 September
2003 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001
and repealing Decision 2003/1480 (OJ 2003 L 229, p. 22).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2006/379/EC of 29 May 2006 imple-
menting Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on
specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and
entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision
2005/930 in so far as it concerns Stichting Al-Aqsa;

2. Declares that there is no need to rule on the claim for a declaration,
that Council Regulation

pursuant
No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 is unlawful;

to Article 241 EC,

3. Orders the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of

Stichting Al-Aqsa:

Operative part of the judgment

4. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay its own costs.

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 251, 18.10.2003.

(1) OJ C 289, 29.11.2003.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 —
Stichting Al-Aqsa v Council

(Case T-327/03) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures
against certain persons and entities with a view to combating
terrorism — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment —
Statement of reasons)

(2007/C 199/54)

Language of the case: English

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 —
Schneider Electric v Commission

(Case T-351/03) (1)

(Non-contractual liability of the Community — Loss sustained
by an undertaking as a result of a sufficiently serious breach
of Community law vitiating the control procedure relating to a
merger's compatibility with the common market)

(2007/C 199/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Al-Aqsa (Heerlen — Netherlands)
sented by: V. Koppe and L. Janssen, lawyer)

(repre-

Applicant: Schneider Electric SA (Rueil-Malmaison — France)
(represented by: A. Winckler and M. Pittie, lawyers)