CELEX: C2001/317/36
Language: en
Date: 2001-11-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-359/01 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2001 by British Sugar plc against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-202/98, T-204/98 and T-207/98 between Tate & Lyle plc, British Sugar plc, Napier Brown & Co. Ltd and the Commission of the European Communities

C 317/20               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.11.2001
Appeal brought on 21 September 2001 by British Sugar                    Pleas in law and main arguments
plc against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2001 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        The appellant maintains that the facts relied upon by the Court
European Communities in Joined Cases T-202/98,
                                                                        of First Instance fail to establish that the agreement/concerted
T-204/98 and T-207/98 (1) between Tate & Lyle plc, British
                                                                        practice in question was capable of having an effect on inter-
Sugar plc, Napier Brown & Co. Ltd and the Commission
                                                                        State trade. The Court of First Instance also failed to have
                of the European Communities
                                                                        sufficient regard to the structure of the relevant market, a
                                                                        factor which, according to the Appellant, ought to have been
                                                                        taken into account as a mitigating factor. The Appellant
                                                                        therefore maintains that, on the basis of the fact and law as
                        (Case C-359/01 P)                               found by the Court of First Instance, that Court ought to have
                                                                        held that the fine imposed by the Commission was grossly
                                                                        disproportionate.
                         (2001/C 317/36)
                                                                        (1) OJ C 48, 20.2.1999, p. 29-30.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2001 by
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Joined Cases T-202/98, T-204/98
and T-207/98 between Tate & Lyle plc, British Sugar plc,                Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Com-
Napier Brown & Co. Ltd and the Commission of the European                  mission of the European Communities against Ireland
Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 21 September 2001 by British                                             (Case C-362/01)
Sugar plc, represented by Messrs Thomas Sharpe QG, Daniel
Jowell, barrister, et Alex Nourry, solicitor, with an address for
                                                                                                 (2001/C 317/37)
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities on 24 September
                                                                        2001 by the Commission of the Europe an Communities,
The Applicant claims that the Court should find that:                   represented by Karen Banks, acting as agent, with an address
                                                                        for service in Luxembourg.
1)   the agreement/concerted practice was not capable of                The Applicant requests that the Court should:
     having an effect on trade between Member States; alterna-
     tively                                                             1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                              or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              European Parliament and Council Directive 98/5/EC of
                                                                              16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession
2)   the fine imposed was disproportionate
                                                                              of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other
                                                                              than that in which the qualification was obtained (1), or
                                                                              in any event by failing to inform the Commission of
and seeks an order in the following terms:                                    those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under that Directive.
1)   that the Judgment of the Court of First Instance be set            2)    order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.
     aside: and
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
2)   the contested Decision be annulled in whole, or alterna-
     tively in part; alternatively                                      Article 249 EC under which a directive shall be binding as to
                                                                        the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
                                                                        implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
3)   Articles 3 and 4 of the contested Decision be annulled or          period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
     the fine reduced; and                                              expired on 14 March 2000 without Ireland having enacted the
                                                                        provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred to
                                                                        in the conclusions of the Commission.
4)   the Commission pay British Sugar’s costs incurred in
     relation to this Appeal and the costs relating to Case,            (1) OJ L 77, 14.3.1998, p. 36-43.
     T-204/98 including those relating to the proceedings for
     interim relief.