Case C-481/07 P: Appeal brought on 2 November 2007 by SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA, formerly Alenia Marconi Systems SpA, against the order of 29 August 2007 of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-186/05 SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA v Commision of the European Communities
Date: 2007-11-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Eurocontrol, European Commission, action for failure to act, appeal, competition law, dominant position, liability

C 37/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.2.2008

V

(Announcements)

COURT PROCEEDINGS

COURT OF JUSTICE

Appeal brought on 2 November 2007 by SELEX Sistemi
Integrati SpA,
formerly Alenia Marconi Systems SpA,
against the order of 29 August 2007 of the Court of First
in Case T-186/05 SELEX
Instance (Second Chamber)
the European
Sistemi

Integrati SpA v Commision of

Communities

(Case C-481/07 P)

(2008/C 37/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA, formerly Alenia Marconi
Systems SpA (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and A.
Neri, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Forms of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the order of

the Court of First

Instance of
29 August 2007 in Case T-186/05, and refer the case back
to the Court of First
Instance for adjudication on the
substance in the light of any guidance which it may please
the Court of Justice to provide;

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in the
present proceedings, together with those incurred in Case
T-186/05.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its claims, the appellant alleges that:

(a) the legal expenses incurred in Case T-155/04 were wrongly
excluded from the ambit of recoverable loss. In the appel-
lant's submission,
Instance erred as
the Court of First
follows:

— it wrongly characterised the action for damages as an
attempt ‘to overturn the order for costs in the judgment’
in Case T-155/04;

— it misconstrued Article 87 et seq of the Rules of Proce-
dure of the Court of First Instance in relation to the
principles relating to compensation for loss;

— it held, wrongly, that Montorio was applicable to the case

before it;

(b) the Court of First Instance erred in excluding from the
ambit of recoverable loss the legal costs incurred in the
administrative pre-litigation procedure.
In the appellant's
submission, that error consists in interpreting and applying
Article 87 et seq of the Rules of Procedure to an individual
action for damages, which is completely outside the scope
of those provisions;

(c) the clear sense of the evidence adduced by the appellant was
distorted. The Court of First
Instance did not correctly
analyse the documentation produced by the applicant in
Case T-186/05 or the annexes thereto;

(d) the grounds stated are illogical and contradictory, and the
Community case-law on damages was flouted. The Court of
First Instance did not correctly apply the principles set out
in Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90 Mulder (1) and Case
C-243/05 P Agraz (2);

(e) Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
Instance was infringed. In the appellant's submission, the
correct interpretation of that provision does not require that
the application must ‘necessarily’ contain the evidence; on
the contrary, that provision is based on the concept of
‘possibility’, that is to say, it requires the party to provide
evidence only when that is possible;

(f) the reasons stated are inadequate as regards the issue of
compensation for the damage suffered by the appellant as a
result of the infringement of the principle that the adminis-
trative procedure must be of reasonable duration. The Court
of First Instance did not, in fact, state the grounds for its
rejection of the claim for compensation in relation to the
specific infringement alleged by the appellant;

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/3

(g) the clear sense of

the arguments and the evidence was
distorted, and the reasoning is illogical and inconsistent
with the Community case-law on compensation for
non-material damage. For the purposes of rejecting the
claim for damages in relation to breach of the principle that
the administrative procedure must be of reasonable duration
or of the Commission's duty of vigilance, the Court of First
Instance was not entitled to use the arguments exclusively
concerning exclusion from the public procurement proce-
dures or failure to award a public supply contract.

(1) [2000] ECR I-203.
(2) [2006] ECR I-10833.

Action brought on 14 November 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Czech Republic

(Case C-496/07)

(2008/C 37/03)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Rozet and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic

Form of order sought

C-47/02. The requirement laid down in Czech law that the
master of a ship must be of Czech nationality is absolute. The
relevant provisions of Czech law do not take into account the
way in which and extent to which the master of a ship in reality
exercises the powers conferred by public law, as required by the
abovementioned case-law of
the
European Communities. The mere fact that Czech law entrusts
masters of ships flying the Czech flag with powers which fall
within the ambit of powers conferred by public law is not
enough to warrant use of the derogation from the freedom of
movement for workers laid down in Article 39(4) of the EC
Treaty.

the Court of

Justice of

the European Communities is of

The Commission of
the
opinion that the Czech Republic is under an obligation to bring
its domestic legislation into conformity with the case-law of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities, notwithstanding
the fact that (according to the statements of the Czech Republic)
there are currently no ships flying the Czech flag.

(1) Case C-405/01 Colegio de Oficiales de la Marina Mercante Espagñola v
Administración del Estado [2003] ECR I-10391, concerning Spanish
legislation reserving the post of master and chief mate on ships
flying the Spanish flag to persons with Spanish nationality.

(2) Case C-47/02 Albert Anker, Klaas Ras a Albertus Snoek v Federal
Republic of Germany [2003] ECR I-10447, concerning German legisla-
tion reserving the post of captain on ships flying the German flag
and engaged in small-scale maritime shipping (‘Kleine Seeschiffahrt’) to
persons with German nationality.

Appeal brought on 19 November 2007 by Territorio
Energia Ambiente SpA (TEA) against the order made by
the Court of
(Fourth Chamber) on
Instance
17 September 2007 in Case T-175/07 Territorio Energia
Ambiente SpA v Commission of the European Communities

First

— Declare that, in so far as Czech domestic legislation reserves
the exercise of the post of captain of a ship flying the Czech
flag to persons with Czech nationality, the Czech Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 of the EC
Treaty;

— Order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

(Case C-500/07 P)

(2008/C 37/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Pleas in law and main arguments

Parties

In the above action the Commission relies on the following
pleas:

Appellant: Territorio Energia Ambiente (TEA) (represented by: E.
Coffrini and F. Tesauro, avvocati)

Czech domestic legislation (Law No 61/2000) places
the
operator of a ship under an obligation to ensure that the master
of a ship flying the Czech flag is a citizen of
the Czech
Republic.

That clear and completely unconditional requirement to have
Czech nationality,
in the opinion of the Commission of the
European Communities, conflicts with the findings reached by
the European Communities in Case
the Court of
C-405/01 (1) and C-47/02 (2). The Commission draws attention
in particular to the findings in paragraph 44 of the judgment in
the judgment in Case
Case C-405/01 and paragraph 63 of

Justice of

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought

— annul and/or amend in its entirety the order of the Court of
First Instance at present under appeal, and rule as appro-
priate;

— grant the forms of order already sought at first instance.