Appeal brought on 21 February 2007 by Coop de France Bétail et Viande, formerly the Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV) against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2006 in Joined Cases T-217/03 and T-245/03 Coop de France Bétail et Viande v Commission

(Case C-101/07P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Coop de France Bétail et Viande, formerly Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV) (represented by: M. Ponsard, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles (FNSEA), Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale de producteurs de lait (FNPL), Jeunes agriculteurs (JA), Commission of the European Communities, French Republic

Form of order sought

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 in Case T-217/03;

declare that there is no need to impose a fine on the applicant;

alternatively reduce the amount of the fine imposed by that judgment;

order the Commission to pay all the costs related to the interim and the main proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant puts forward six grounds in support of its appeal. By its first five grounds, which seek to have the contested judgment set aside, the applicant alleges, first, that the Court of First Instance erred in failing to recognise the infringement of the rights of defence by the Commission relating to the absence of a reference in the statement of objections to the method used for the calculation of the fines, second, the distortion by the Court of First Instance of the evidence on the secret extension of the agreement of October 2001, third, that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law by presuming that the applicant adhered to the pursuit of the agreement by referring to an overall agreement between slaughterers and breeders, without specifically establishing the appellant's acquiescence to its pursuit, fourth, even assuming that its acquiescence were to be established, the Court of First Instance erred by classifying the agreement as anti-competitive, without examining the general legal and economic background to it and its possible effects and, fifth, breach of the duty to state reasons and contradiction in the grounds of the contested judgment in that account was taken of the turnover of the appellant's members, and not that of the appellant itself, in order to ascertain whether the ceiling of 10% of turnover referred to in Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 had been exceeded.

By its sixth ground of appeal which seeks, in the alternative, to obtain a reduction of the fine imposed on it, the appellant argues that if the Court rejects the preceding grounds of appeal it is appropriate, in any event, to reduce the amount of the fine imposed in so far it corresponds not to 10% but 20% of its turnover, which contrary to the wording of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17.

____________