CELEX: C2007/082/29
Language: en
Date: 2007-04-14 00:00:00
Title: Case C-28/07 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2007 by NV Ter Lembeek International against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) on 23 November 2006 in Case T-217/02 NV Ter Lembeek International v Commission of the European Communities

14.4.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 82/16
            
         Appeal brought on 26 January 2007 by NV Ter Lembeek International against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) on 23 November 2006 in Case T-217/02 NV Ter Lembeek International v Commission of the European Communities
   
   (Case C-28/07 P)
   (2007/C 82/29)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties
   
      Appellant: NV Ter Lembeek International (represented by: J.-P. Vande Maele, F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever, advocaten)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Declare the present appeal to be admissible and well founded and set aside the judgment in Case T-217/02 to the extent to which that judgment rejected the first part of the first plea in law;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
               1.
            
            
               The sole plea in law is to the effect that the Court of First Instance acted contrary to Article 87(1) EC in ruling in the judgment under appeal, on the basis of a misconstruction of the law, that there was favourable treatment of the appellant within the terms of Article 87(1) EC.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The sole plea consists of two parts:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           Primarily: the judgment under appeal breaches Article 87(1) EC in holding that that there was favourable treatment of the appellant within the terms of Article 87(1) EC on the basis of a merely formalistic examination of Article 87(1) EC, rather than an economic appraisal.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           In the alternative: the judgment under appeal breaches Article 87(1) EC in holding that that there was no overvaluation of the shares in issue and that the absence of overvaluation constituted favourable treatment within the terms of Article 87(1) EC.