CELEX: C2007/269/61
Language: en
Date: 2007-11-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-425/07 P: Appeal brought on 14 September 2007 by AEPI A.E. Elliniki Etairia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2007 in Case T-229/05 AEPI A.E. v Commission of the European Communities

10.11.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 269/36
            
         Appeal brought on 14 September 2007 by AEPI A.E. Elliniki Etairia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2007 in Case T-229/05 AEPI A.E. v Commission of the European Communities
   
   (Case C-425/07 P)
   (2007/C 269/61)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties
   
      Appellant: AEPI AE Elliniki Etairia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias (represented by: T. Asproyerakas-Trivas, lawyer)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:
   
               —
            
            
               allow this appeal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               set aside the contested judgment of 12 July 2007 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber), under No 328208, in Case T-229/05 AEPI A.E. v Commission of the European Communities in its entirety;
            
         
               —
            
            
               hear and give judgment itself on our application of 14 June 2005 (under Article 230 EC), No 001/4372, 56(2001) A/3603/2, which was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities against Commission Decision SG-Greffe (2005) D/201832 of 18 April 2005 rejecting our complaint of 22 March 2001 (2001/4372, 56) (2001 A/3603/2), or refer the case back to the Court which delivered the judgment under appeal so that the claims set out therein be allowed
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the respondent to pay our costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The judgment under appeal misinterpreted Articles 81 and 82 EC inasmuch as the Court did not examine whether the contested Commission decision exceeded the limits of its discretion, did not take account of the case-law of the Court of Justice on the matter and did not take into consideration the facts set out in the application which show potential prejudice to intra-Community trade. Lastly, in misinterpreting and misapplying Articles 81 and 82 EC, it was considered that the competition provisions of Community law necessarily require the existence of actual prejudice to intra-Community trade, whereas in fact, on a correct interpretation and application of the above provisions, potential prejudice suffices to found the infringement.