CELEX: 62007TN0192
Language: en
Date: 2007-06-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-192/07: Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise v Commission

21.7.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 170/36
            
         Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise v Commission
   (Case T-192/07)
   (2007/C 170/69)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise (Committee for the protection of wine-growing in the Charente) (Sainte-Sévère, France) (represented by: C.-E. Gudin, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               annul Commission decision No SG-Greffe (2007) D-20276 of 3 April 2007 addressed to the applicant's representative and thus declare void the measure contested in this action;
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare null and void in its entirety the Commission's decision by which it dismisses the applicant's complaint.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By decision of 3 April 2007 the Commission decided not to allow the applicant's complaint concerning the alleged infringement of Article 81 EC by the Institut National des Appellations d'Origine (INAO) (National Institute of Designations of Origin) in France and the alleged infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by the major firms trading in cognac spirit (Case COMP/38863/B2-MODEF). By this action, the applicant is seeking the annulment of that decision.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward three pleas.
   The first plea relates to the alleged lack of competence of the Commission member who was the signatory to the contested measure, when he signed it ‘on behalf of the Commission’.
   Second, the applicant submits that the decision did not contain a sufficient statement of reasons in so far as the Commission did not respond in the letter rejecting the complaint to all the information submitted by the applicant.
   By its third plea, the applicant claims that the Commission did not give sufficiently serious consideration to the complaint.