Case C-425/07 P: Appeal brought on 14 September 2007 by AEPI A.E. Elliniki Etairia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2007 in Case T-229/05 AEPI A.E. v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for annulment (EU), competition law, copyright, intra-EU trade, music

C 269/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.11.2007

Appeal brought on 14 September 2007 by AEPI A.E.
Elliniki Etairia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias
against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2007 in Case
the European
T-229/05 AEPI A.E. v Commission of

provisions, potential prejudice suffices to found the infringe-
ment.

Communities

(Case C-425/07 P)

(2007/C 269/61)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: AEPI AE Elliniki Etairia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis
Idioktisias (represented by: T. Asproyerakas-Trivas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

— allow this appeal;

— set aside the contested judgment of 12 July 2007 of the
the European Communities
Court of First
(Fourth Chamber), under No 328208,
in Case T-229/05
AEPI A.E. v Commission of the European Communities in its
entirety;

Instance of

— hear and give judgment itself on our application of 14 June
2005 (under Article 230 EC), No 001/4372, 56(2001)
A/3603/2, which was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities against Commission
Decision SG-Greffe (2005) D/201832 of 18 April 2005
rejecting our complaint of 22 March 2001 (2001/4372, 56)
(2001 A/3603/2), or refer the case back to the Court which
delivered the judgment under appeal so that the claims set
out therein be allowed

— order the respondent to pay our costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The judgment under appeal misinterpreted Articles 81 and
82 EC inasmuch as the Court did not examine whether the
contested Commission decision exceeded the limits of its discre-
tion, did not take account of the case-law of the Court of
Justice on the matter and did not take into consideration the
facts set out in the application which show potential prejudice
to intra-Community trade. Lastly, in misinterpreting and misap-
plying Articles 81 and 82 EC, it was considered that the compe-
tition provisions of Community law necessarily require the exis-
tence of actual prejudice to intra-Community trade, whereas in
fact, on a correct interpretation and application of the above

Action brought on 14 September 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-427/07)

(2007/C 269/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Recchia and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by failing to adopt,

in conformity with
(3) and (4) of
Article 2(1) and Article 4 paragraphs (2),
Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environ-
ment as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC, all
measures to ensure that, before consent is given, projects
likely to have significant effects on the environment in the
road construction category covered by Class 10(e) of
Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC are made subject to a
requirement for development consent and to an assessment
with regard to their effects in accordance with Articles 5 to
10 of the Directive, has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Council Directive 85/337/EEC

— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles
3(1), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) and 4(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6)
of Directive 2003/35/EC (2) of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public partici-
pation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and
programmes relating to the environment and amending
with regard to public participation and access to justice
Council Directive 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC or,
in any
event, by failing to adequately notify such provisions to the
Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 6 of that Directive.

— order Ireland to pay the costs.