Case C-103/11 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-19/07 Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission
Date: 2011-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Luxembourg, computer piracy, copyright, software








C_2011145EN.01001301.xml










14.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/13





Appeal brought on 2 March 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-19/07 Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission

(Case C-103/11 P)
2011/C 145/18
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. Van Rijn, E. Montaguti and J. Samnadda, Agents, assisted by A. Berenboom and M. Isgour, laywers)

Other party to the proceedings: Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA

Form of order sought







—


Declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;










—


Set aside the judgment of 16 December 2010 in Case T-19/07 Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission to the extent that it allows in part the action for damages brought against the Commission and, consequently, by finally ruling on the case dismiss the action on the basis that it is inadmissible or unfounded;










—


Order Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg SA to bear all their own costs and those of the Commission;










—


In the alternative, set aside the judgment of 16 December 2010 in Case T-19/07 Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission and refer the case back to the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission relies on eight pleas in law in support of its appeal. It claims that the judgment is vitiated by a series of errors such as to justify its being set aside. The pleas raised by it relate to the jurisdiction of the General Court to hear the case, its compliance with procedures, and its fulfilment of the three conditions which, according to settled case-law, are cumulatively necessary in order to give rise to the Community’s non-contractual liability: the existence of fault, of damage and of a causal link between the fault and the damage.
By its first plea, the Commission claims that the General Court erred in law by deciding that the dispute was of a non-contractual nature and, accordingly, by declaring that it had jurisdiction to hear the case.
By its second plea, the applicant claims that the General Court infringed the rights of the defence enjoyed by the Commission and disregarded the rules on the taking of evidence.
By its third plea, it maintains that the rules on copyright were incorrectly applied with regard to the ownership of copyright.
By its fourth plea, the Commission maintains that the General Court made a manifest legal error with regard to its assessment of the existence, first, of an infringement of copyright and, second, of an infringement of Systran’s know-how.
Its fifth plea alleges that, by considering that the Commission’s supposed fault constitutes a sufficiently serious breach, the General Court made a manifest error of assessment which led to an infringement of the principles governing the European Union’s non-contractual liability.
By its sixth plea, the applicant submits, first, that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the exception laid down in Article 5 of Directive 91/250/EEC and, second, that it failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons with regard to Article 6 of that directive.
By its seventh plea, the Commission alleges, first, that the General Court made clearly incorrect findings of fact, misinterpreted evidence, and made manifest errors of assessment and, second, that it failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons with regard to the existence of a causal link.
Finally, the eighth plea alleges that, by awarding Systran damages with interest amounting to EUR 12 001 000, the General Court, first, is guilty of making clearly incorrect findings of fact, misinterpreting evidence, and making manifest errors of assessment and, second, the General Court fails to fulfil its obligation to state reasons concerning the calculation of the damage.