Notice for the OJ

 

Appeal brought on 22 December 2004 by D. Meca-Medina and I. Majcen against the judgment delivered on 30 September 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-313/02 between D. Meca-Medina and I. Majcen, and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Republic of Finland.

(Case C-519/04 P)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 September 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-313/02 between D. Meca-Medina and I. Majcen, and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Republic of Finland, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 December 2004 (fax: 20.12.2004) by D. Meca-Medina and I. Majcen, represented by J.- L. Dupont and M.- A. Lucas, lawyers.

The appellants claim that the Court should:

-    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2004 in Case T-313/02, against which the appeal has been brought;

-    grant the form of order sought by the appellants in the Court of First Instance;

-    order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at both instances.

Pleas on appeal and main arguments

The judgement of the Court of First Instance infringes Articles 49 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC, as interpreted by the Court of Justice.

Firstly, the Court of First Instance was wrong to hold that those provisions apply only to rules laid down in the field of sport which concern the economic aspect of sport, to the exclusion of purely sporting rules. The Court of Justice has not laid down such a general exclusion of purely sporting rules from the scope of the provisions of the Treaty, that exclusion being limited to the rules relating to the composition and training of national teams.

The Court of First Instance was also wrong to hold that that the anti-doping legislation is based on purely sporting considerations when it accepted that such legislation may pursue an economic objective. The Court of First Instance thereby made materially inaccurate factual findings, contradicted itself in the grounds, which are moreover inadequate, and erred in its legal characterisation of the facts.

Furthermore, by holding that that the legislation at issue falls outside the scope of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC, the Court of First Instance infringed those articles.

Finally, the Court of First Instance committed a breach of the procedural rules and more specifically the rights of the defence, by holding that the Commission's analysis of the legislation at issue in its decision rejecting the complaint is superfluous, when it is apparent from that decision that the Commission had regarded that legislation as falling within the scope of the provisions of the EC Treaty. The Court of First Instance thereby infringed the rights of the defence of the appellants, who were not able to present their point of view on that question.

____________