CELEX: C2007/247/22
Language: en
Date: 2007-10-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-374/07 P: Appeal brought on 3 August 2007 by Mebrom NV against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2007 in Case T-198/05: Mebrom NV v Commission of the European Communities

20.10.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 247/17
            
         Appeal brought on 3 August 2007 by Mebrom NV against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2007 in Case T-198/05: Mebrom NV v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-374/07 P)
   (2007/C 247/22)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Appellant: Mebrom NV (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, avocat, C. Mereu, avocat)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2007 in Case T-198/05;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Declare the Appellant's requests in Case T-198/05 admissible and well-founded;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Grant the request for damages made by the Appellant at first instance or, in the alternative, refer the case to the Court of First Instance to rule on the merits; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Defendant to bear all the costs and expenses of both proceedings.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:
   Distortion of facts and evidence and manifest error in the legal assessment of facts:
   
               —
            
            
               Incorrect assessment of questions and answers provided as evidence in the form of questionnaires;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Incorrect assessment of the questionnaires regarding the seasonal use of methyl bromide;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Omission of sales figures presented by the appellant and an obvious confusion between sales and import figures provided by the appellant and the defendant respectively;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Failure to properly evaluate the sales figures;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Contradictions and incoherence in the legal assessment of facts;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Failure to assess the evidence collectively and in combined form.
            
         Misapplication of the legal requirement to establish actual damage:
   
               —
            
            
               Confusion of the existence of damage with the extent of damage;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Confusion of the examination of the existence of damage with the examination of a causal link;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Requirement to show that the damage could not be made up.
            
         The CFI placed a disproportionate and unjustified burden of proof on the appellant.
   Inconsistency in reasoning.
   Procedural error in the application of the legal standard related to the receipt of new evidence in the course of proceedings.
   Infringement of the rights of defence, the right to a fair hearing and equality of arms.