Case C-468/07 P: Appeal brought on 22 October 2007 by Coats Holdings Ltd, J&P Coats Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-36/05: Coats Holdings Ltd and J&P Coats Ltd v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, appeal, fine, haberdashery, market-sharing agreement, restrictive trade practice, sanction (EU)

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/31

for

2. In the event of unlawful conduct

the purposes of
Article 202 of the Customs Code which is discovered upon
introduction, the customs debt must be extinguished. By
contrast, seizure of goods directly upon their being removed
from customs supervision, as unlawful conduct
the
purposes of Article 203 of the Customs Code, results in no
immediate extinction of the customs debt.

for

Is point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 233 of the
Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that this extinc-
tion of the customs debt, which is restricted expressly to
cases where the customs debt is incurred in accordance with
Article 202 of the Customs Code, is nevertheless consistent
with the principle of equal treatment of unlawful conduct?

member of a tripartite agreement — the Court of First Instance
failed to apply the principal of equal treatment by adjusting the
basic amount of Coats' fine downwards by 20 percent only.

In the alternative the appellant submits that the Court of First
Instance failed to take account of all the elements of the deci-
sion which it annulled in making a reduction of the fine on the
grounds of attenuating circumstances.

(1) OJ L 302, p. 1.

Action brought on 25 October 2007 — European
Parliament v Commission of the European Communities

Appeal brought on 22 October 2007 by Coats Holdings
Ltd, J&P Coats Ltd against the judgment of the Court of
First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 September
2007 in Case T-36/05: Coats Holdings Ltd and J&P Coats
Ltd v Commission of the European Communities

Parties

(Case C-474/07)

(2007/C 297/51)

Language of the case: English

(Case C-468/07 P)

(2007/C 297/50)

Language of the case: English

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Bradley and
U. Rosslein, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Parties

Appellants: Coats Holdings Ltd, J&P Coats Ltd (represented by:
W. Sibree and C. Jeffs, Solicitors)

— annul Commission Regulations (EC) No 915/2007 (1) of
31 July 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 622/2003
laying down measures
the
common basic standards on aviation security, and

the implementation of

for

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

costs.

— order Commission of the European Communities to pay the

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— reduce the fine in relation to Coats such that (i) it recognises
the principle of equal treatment; and (ii) takes account of the
substantial parts of the Commission's findings which were
annulled by the Court of First Instance, which go to redu-
cing the gravity of the infringement and strengthening the
attenuating circumstances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

As co-legislator with the Council
the European Parliament
decided in 2002 that certain implementing measures on air
security should not be published. The applicant maintains that
the Commission has applied this rule incorrectly, by systemati-
cally failing to publish implementing measures which do not
require to be kept secret. In adopting Regulation 915/207, the
Commission has misinterpreted its powers under Regulation
2320/2002, contravened Article 254 EC and the principles of
democracy, openness and the publicity of
legislative acts,
created legal uncertainty, and failed to provide a proper state-
ment of reasons.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that having quashed all the Commission's
factual findings relating to infringements of Article 81 except
one narrow finding — and in particular having annulled the
Commission's central finding that Coats was an equally active

(1) OJ L 200, p. 3.