CELEX: C2004/156/15
Language: en
Date: 2004-06-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-190/04 P: Appeal brought on 23 April 2004 by Graham French, John Neiger and Michael Leighton against the order made on 20 February 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-319/03 between Graham French, John Steven Neiger, Michael Leighton, John Frederick Richard Pascoe, Richard Micklethwait, Ruth Margaret Micklethwait and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

12.6.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 156/7
            
         Appeal brought on 23 April 2004 by Graham French, John Neiger and Michael Leighton against the order made on 20 February 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-319/03 between Graham French, John Steven Neiger, Michael Leighton, John Frederick Richard Pascoe, Richard Micklethwait, Ruth Margaret Micklethwait and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-190/04 P)
   (2004/C 156/15)
   An appeal against the order made on 20 February 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-319/03 between Graham French, John Steven Neiger, Michael Leighton, John Frederick Richard Pascoe, Richard Micklethwait, Ruth Margaret Micklethwait and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 April 2004 by Graham French, John Neiger and Michael Leighton, represented by J.S. Barnett, Solicitor-Advocate.
   The Appellants claim that the Court should:
   
               1)
            
            
               set aside the order;
            
         
               2)
            
            
               grant the relief sought by the Appellants in the form of the draft order annexed to the Application; alternatively
            
         
               3)
            
            
               remit the case to the Court of First Instance; and in any event
            
         
               4)
            
            
               order the Defendants to pay the Appellants' costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Appellants contend that the Court of First Instance erred in law when it found that, as regards the Defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct, they (the Applicants) did not specify the primary rule of law which the Defendants are alleged to have broken or infringed. The Appellants submit that the Defendants' failure was set out clearly in their application.