EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/17

(Case C-335/08 P)

(2008/C 285/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Transports Schiocchet — Excursions SARL (represented by: D. Schönberger, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

—Annul the order of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 2008;

—Decide the case definitively by granting the applications sought at first instance;

—In the alternative, remit the case to the Court of First Instance;

—Order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its appeal.

In its first plea, the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance infringed the principle of legal certainty which applies to decisions of the Community judicature, Article 235 EC, the second paragraph of Article 288 EC and Article 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms inasmuch as, in paragraph 39 of the contested order, the Court of First Instance that the commencement of the appellants actions before the national courts neither suspended nor interrupted the limitation period, whereas in its earlier decisions, which are now res judicata, the Court encouraged it to continue its action before the national courts.

In its second plea, the appellant complains of several errors committed by the Court of First Instance in assessing the conditions for non-contractual liability concerning distortion of the facts and the forms of order sought in the appellant's application, the second paragraph of Article 288 EC and Article 230 EC with regard, in particular to the alleged confirmation of the Commission's position by the national courts and the assessment made of the period in which the damage was suffered.

In its third and final plea, the appellant invokes an infringement of Article 4(2) and Article 2(1)(3) of Regulation No 684/92 inasmuch as the Court of First Instance erroneously accepted the Commission's interpretation and wrongly characterised the activities of the appellant's competitors as ‘special regular services’ (Article 4(2)) and therefore exempt from authorisation, whereas they are in fact parallel or temporary services (Article 2(1)(3)), subject to the same rules as the regular services operated by the appellant.

(1) OJ 1992 L 74, p. 1.