CELEX: C2007/211/49
Language: en
Date: 2007-09-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-319/07 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2007 by 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23.4.2007 in Case T-30/03: Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v Commission of the European Communities

8.9.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 211/27
            
         Appeal brought on 11 July 2007 by 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23.4.2007 in Case T-30/03: Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-319/07 P)
   (2007/C 211/49)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Appellant: 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) (represented by: A. Bentley, Barrister and A. Worsøe, advokat)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of Norway
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 23 April 2007 in Case T-30/03, Specialarbejderforbundet i Dan mark v Commission of the European Communities; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare the appellant's application in Case T-30/03 admissible; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order that the Applicant's costs of bringing the present appeal be borne by the Commission in any event.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that the contested order should be annulled on the following grounds:
   
               1.
            
            
               The Court of First Instance erred in law by relying on Case C-67/96, Albany to hold that the appellant could not rely on its own competitive position in the negotiation of collective agreements in order to establish that it was individually concerned.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The Court of First Instance erred in law by finding that the appellant could not rely on social aspects to establish that it was individually concerned.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               The Court of First Instance misapplied the Plaumann and ARE case-law by finding that the appellant cannot be regarded as individually concerned merely because the aid in question is passed to the recipients by means of a reduction in the wage claims of seafarers benefiting from the income tax exemption.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               The Court of First Instance misapplied the Van der Kooy and CIRFS case-law by finding that the appellant's own interest as a negotiator were not affected by fiscal measures.