Sentencia del Tribunal de Primera Instancia, de 21 de abril de 2005, en el asunto T-28/03, Holcim (Deutschland) AG contra Comisión de las Comunidades Europeas («Artículo 85 del Tratado CE (actualmente artículo 81 CE) — Ejecución de una sentencia del Tribunal de Primera Instancia — Reembolso de los gastos de una garantía bancaria — Responsabilidad extracontractual de la Comunidad»)

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Published date: 28 June 2005
• Celex Number: C2005/155/28

25.6.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/14

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 21 April 2005

in Case T-28/03 Holcim (Deutschland) AG v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) - Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Reimbursement of bank guarantee charges - Non-contractual liability of the Community)

(2005/C 155/28)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-28/03: Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG, established in Hamburg (Germany), represented initially by F. Wiemer, and K. Moosecker, then by F. Wiemer, P. Niggemann and B. Menkhaus, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — Application for compensation in the form of reimbursement of the bank guarantee charges incurred by the applicant following a fine fixed by Commission Decision 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement) (OJ 1994 L 343, p. 1), which was annulled by the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2000 in Joined Cases T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95 to T-32/95, T-34/95 to T-39/95, T-42/95 to T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95 to T-65/95, T-68/95 to T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95 Cimenteries CBR and Others v Commission (‘Cement’) [2000] ECR II-491 — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 April 2005, in which it:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it is based on Article 233 EC;

2. Dismisses as inadmissible the alternative request that the action, in so far as it is based on Article 233 EC, be interpreted as being an action for annulment or for failure to act;

3. Dismisses as inadmissible the claim for damages, as regards the bank guarantee charges incurred by the applicant before 31 January 1998;

4. Dismisses the remainder of the application as unfounded;

5. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1) OJ C 124 of 24.5.2003.

---