CELEX: C1999/048/24
Language: en
Date: 1999-02-20 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 8 December 1998 by International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) against the judgment delivered on 16 September 1998 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-110/95 between International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, La Poste and The Post Office (Case C-449/98 P)

C 48/14                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
    application for the extension of his residence permit,               Composition) of 16 September 1998 in case T-110/94,
    and the authority subsequently refuses the application?              International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) v.
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities;
3. Where a Turkish national commits an offence against
    the Narcotics Law, and on specific and general
    preventive grounds the authorities have no discretion            Ð decide on the case pursuant to Article 54 of the
    in the matter, is the limitation', within the meaning of            Statute (EC) of the Court and annul the decision of
    Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80, of his entitlement                17 February 1995 of the Commission contested in case
    acquired pursuant the second indent of the first                     T-110/95;
    paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 justified'
    on grounds of public policy, public security or public
    health if, on the evidence of his personal conduct, it           Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the
    may reasonably be expected that he will not re-offend?               proceedings before the Court of First Instance as well
    In determining that question, are the criteria which                 as the costs of the present proceedings;
    apply the same as those under Article 48(3) of the EC
    Treaty and Article 3(1) and (2) of Council Directive
    64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 (1) on the                        Ð order the interveners before the Court of First Instance
    coordination of special measures concerning the                      to pay the applicant's costs before the Court of First
    movement and residence of foreign nationals which                    Instance relating to the interventions in these
    are justified on grounds of public policy, public                    proceedings;
    security or public health?
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1963Ð1964, p. 117.                   Ð alternatively, in the event that it does not decide on
                                                                         the case, reserve the costs and refer the matter to a
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance composed of
                                                                         judges other than those present in case T-110/95.
Appeal brought on 8 December 1998 by International                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
Express Carriers Conference (IECC) against the judgment
delivered on 16 September 1998 by the Third Chamber,
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of              1. It is submitted that the Court of First Instance
the European Communities in case T-110/95 (1) between                    committed a manifest factual error in examining the
International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) and the                 documents submitted to it. It justified the
Commission of the European Communities, supported by                     Commission's affirmations which relied upon one
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                         document (the Briefing paper), by making reference to
            Ireland, La Poste and The Post Office                        another document (the draft REIMS Agreement)
                       (Case C-449/98 P)                                 which, it is a fact, the Commission had not examined
                         (1999/C 48/24)                                  at the time when the decision was adopted.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 September             2. The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance
1998 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of                      committed an error of law in ruling that the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  Commission was entitled to reject the Appellant's
in case T-110/95 between International Express Carriers                  complaint on grounds of Community interest, by
Conference (IECC) and the Commission of the European                     invoking Article 3 of Regulation 17/62 (2), even though
Communities, supported by the United Kingdom of Great                    the existence of an obvious restriction of competition
Britain and Northern Ireland, La Poste and The Post                      had been demonstrated.
Office, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 8 December 1998 by
International Express Carriers Conference (IECC), a                      Alternatively, the Appellant submits that, in the event
professional organisation established under Swiss law,                   that Community interest can be invoked in a case
having its registered office in Geneva (Switzerland),                    which was fully investigated, the Court of First
represented by Eric Morgan de Rivery, member of the                      Instance violated the legal principles applying to that
Paris Bar, Jacques Derenne, member of the Paris and                      Community interest.
Brussels Bars and Monica Cunningham, member of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, Bonn & Schmitt, 7, Val Ste
                                                                         The Appellant also submits that the Court of First
Croix.
                                                                         Instance erred in law in considering that the
                                                                         Commission was justified in rejecting the complaint on
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                              the grounds that it had proper cause to assume that
                                                                         the conduct of the undertakings concerned will be
Ð annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                   amended in a manner conducive to the general
    the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended                    interest.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.1999            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 48/15
3. The IEEC submits that the Court of First Instance                 9. The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance
    commits an error of law in stating that the mere                      has committed an error in law and has violated
    assumption that in the future the practices complained                Article 62 of its Rules of Procedure in refusing to take
    of might be amended is sufficient for the Commission                  account of the documents submitted by the applicant
    to ensure that the general objective laid down by                     on the sole ground that they postdate the contested
    Article 3(g) of the EC Treaty is achieved.                            decision.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 189, 22.7.1995, p. 17.
    The Court of First Instance has mistaken the exact
                                                                     (2) Council Regulation No 17/62 of 6 February 1962 (First
    scope of the duty which Articles 85 and 155 of the EC                Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty)
    Treaty impose on the Commission in order to ensure a                 (OJ, English Special Edition 1959Ð1962, p. 87).
    proper application of Article 85 in combination with
    Article 3(g) of the Treaty.
4. Violation of the principle whereby the legality of a
    contested decision can only be assessed in the light of
    a legal and factual situation existing at the time of
    said decision.                                                   Appeal brought on 8 December 1998 by International
                                                                     Express Carriers Conference (IECC) against the judgment
                                                                     delivered on 16 September 1998 by the Third Chamber,
5. The Appellant submits that:                                       Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                     the European Communities in cases T-133/95 (1) and
                                                                     T-204/95 (2) between International Express Carriers
    Ð the judgment contains contradictions in its                    Conference (IECC) and the Commission of the European
        statement of reasons which are equivalent to an              Communities, supported by, in cases T-133/95 and
        abuse of statement of reasons;                               T-204/95, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                     Northern Ireland, Deutsche Post AG and The Post Office
    Ð in the event that the application of the concept of                            and, in case T-133/95, La Poste
        Community interest is found by the Court to                                         (Case C-450/98 P)
        necessarily include an assessment of the Automec II
        criteria, the Appellant submits that the Court of                                     (1999/C 48/25)
        First Instance failed to motivate why it considered
        that these criteria were fulfilled;
                                                                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 September
    Ð the Court of First Instance infringes its obligation           1998 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of
        of motivation by failing to state the reasons why            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
        the new factors on which the applicant relied in             in cases T-133/95 and T-204/95 between International
        order to request the reopening of the oral                   Express Carriers Conference (IECC) and the Commission
        procedure did not contain any element decisive for           of the European Communities, supported by, in cases
        the outcome of the litigation within the meaning             T-133/95 and T-204/95, the United Kingdom of Great
        of Article 62 of the Rules of Procedure of the               Britain and Northern Ireland, Deutsche Post AG and The
        Court of First Instance.                                     Post Office and, in case T-133/95, La Poste, was brought
                                                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                     on 8 December 1998 by International Express Carriers
6. The IECC contends that the reasoning of the Court of              Conference (IECC), a professional organisation established
    First Instance aiming at setting aside the plea of               under Swiss law, having its registered office in Geneva
    discrimination filed by the applicant is founded on an           (Switzerland), represented by Eric Morgan de Rivery, of
    error of law in its interpretation of the concept of             the Paris Bar, Jacques Derenne, of the Paris and Brussels
    discrimination.                                                  Bars and Monica Cunningham, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     Alex Schmitt, Bonn & Schmitt, 7 Val Ste Croix.
7. The IECC submits that the Court of First Instance, in
    accepting to weigh the violation of the draft REIMS
    Agreement against its claimed procompetitive effect
    outside the context of Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty,           The Appellant claims that the Court should:
    thereby departing from a long and consistent body of
    case-law, has violated the principle of legal certainty.
                                                                     Ð annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended
8. The Court of First Instance's refusal to appraise                      Composition) of 16 September 1998 in joined cases
    globally all the relevant and consistent factors raised               T-133/95 and T-204/95, International Express Carriers
    by the applicant and its failure to examine many of                   Conference (IECC) v. Commission of the European
    these factors constitutes an error of law in the                      Communities, in so far as it concerns case T-204/95
    application of the legal concept of misuse of powers.                 and points 78 to 83 of case T-133/95;