Case C-556/08: Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2008-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, national implementing measure, recognition of vocational training qualifications

C 44/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.2.2009

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland

The appellant puts forward four pleas in law in support of its
appeal.

By its first plea, the appellant claims that the Court of First
Instance infringed the principle that penalties must be specific
to the offender in that it held that the Commission was not
required to assess individually the various elements of the infrin-
gement, since there was a single infringement and an overall
strategy shared by all the members of the cartel. In the absence
of a definition of the relevant product markets or of the cate-
gories of products in question, such an overall assessment of the
infringement leads to the amount of the fine being set without
infringement specifically committed by
regard for the actual
each member of the cartel.

By its second plea, the appellant asserts that the Court of First
Instance misinterpreted the Commission's decision in that it
held that the Commission had taken account of
the actual
impact of the cartel on the market in question in order to deter-
mine the amount of the fine, despite the fact that the Commis-
sion itself had stated, both in its decision of 3 December 2003,
and at the hearing before the Court of First Instance, that that
impact could not be determined with any precision. The infrin-
gement was classified as ‘very serious’ on the sole ground of its
type and geographical scope.

By its third plea, the appellant claims that the Court of First
Instance infringed the principle of equal treatment in that it
upheld the Commission's refusal to grant the appellant an addi-
tional reduction in the amount of the fine based on the leniency
notice, despite the fact that that reduction had been granted
additionally to two other companies, which are competitors of
the appellant. The close and sustained cooperation of the appel-
lant in the course of the proceedings was, therefore, not suffi-
ciently taken into account and recompensed by the Court of
First Instance.

By its fourth and final plea, Carbone Lorraine objects to the
breaches, by the Court of First Instance, of the principles of
proportionality and equal treatment,
in that it held that the
appellant could not benefit from a reduction in the amount of
the fine on the basis of the serious financial difficulties which it
was facing, despite the fact that that same factor was held to be
sufficient to reduce the fine imposed on another competing
company.

(1) Council Regulation No 17/62 of 7 February 1962, First Regulation
the Treaty (English special

implementing Articles 85 and 86 of
edition: Series I Chapter 1959-1962, p. 87).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the
implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81
and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

(3) OJ 2004 L 125, p. 45.

(Case C-556/08)

(2009/C 44/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: H. Støvlbæk and A.A. Gilly, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to fully comply with
Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of
professional qualifications, or in any event by failing to fully
communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 20 October 2007.

(1) OJ L 255, p. 22.

Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-557/08)

(2009/C 44/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: L. Lozano Palacios and A.A. Gilly, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland