# Official Journal C 69/2007

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 69 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5024 March 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 69

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5024 March 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2007/C 069/01 | Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Court of Justice

2007/C 069/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007

Official Journal of the European Union

1

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | Court of Justice |
| 2007/C 069/02 | Taking of the oath by the new members of the Court of Justice | 2 |
| 2007/C 069/03 | Assignment of the Judges to the Chambers | 2 |
| 2007/C 069/04 | Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Grand Chamber and the Second, Third, Sixth and Seventh Chambers | 2 |
| 2007/C 069/05 | Taking of the oath by the new members of the Court of First Instance | 3 |
| 2007/C 069/06 | Case C-535/06 P: Appeal brought on 28 December 2006 by Moser Baer India Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 4 October 2006 in Case T-300/03: Moser Baer India Ltd v The Council of the European Communities | 3 |
| 2007/C 069/07 | Case C-2/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 4 January 2007 — Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux and Others v Region of Wallonia, Société de développement et de promotion de l'aéroport de Liège-Bierset SA, T.N.T. Express Worldwide (Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale des voies aériennes — Belgocontrol, État belge, Cargo Airlines Ltd | 4 |
| 2007/C 069/08 | Case C-3/07: Action brought on 11 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium | 5 |
| 2007/C 069/09 | Case C-7/07: Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic | 5 |
| 2007/C 069/10 | Case C-8/07: Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium | 6 |
| 2007/C 069/11 | Case C-9/07: Action brought on 16 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic | 6 |
| 2007/C 069/12 | Case C-10/07: Action brought on 16 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg | 6 |
| 2007/C 069/13 | Case C-15/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2007 — 01081 Telecom AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland | 7 |
| 2007/C 069/14 | Case C-19/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 23 January 2007 — Paul Chevassus-Marche v Groupe Danone SA, Kro beer brands SA (BKSA), Eaux minérales d'Evian SA (SAEME) | 7 |
| 2007/C 069/15 | Case C-25/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 25 January 2007 — Alicja Sosnowska v Izba Skarbowa we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu | 7 |
| 2007/C 069/16 | Case C-30/07: Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary | 8 |
| 2007/C 069/17 | Case C-34/07: Action brought on 30 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg | 8 |
| 2007/C 069/18 | Case C-37/07: Action brought on 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic | 8 |
| 2007/C 069/19 | Case C-41/07: Action brought on 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic | 9 |
| 2007/C 069/20 | Case C-42/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto lodged on 2 February 2007 — Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP) and Baw International Ltd v Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa | 9 |
| 2007/C 069/21 | Case C-43/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 February 2007 — D.M.M.A. Arens-Sikken v Staatssecretaris van Financiën | 9 |
| 2007/C 069/22 | Case C-44/07: Action brought on 2 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany | 10 |
| 2007/C 069/23 | Case C-50/07: Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain | 10 |
| 2007/C 069/24 | Case C-51/07: Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg | 11 |
| 2007/C 069/25 | Case C-53/07: Action brought on 6 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic | 11 |
| 2007/C 069/26 | Case C-58/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain | 11 |
| 2007/C 069/27 | Case C-59/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain | 12 |
| 2007/C 069/28 | Case C-60/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic | 12 |
| 2007/C 069/29 | Case C-62/07: Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic | 12 |
| 2007/C 069/30 | Case C-63/07: Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria | 13 |
| 2007/C 069/31 | Case C-64/07: Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland | 13 |
| 2007/C 069/32 | Case C-65/07: Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland | 14 |
| 2007/C 069/33 | Case C-66/07: Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland | 14 |
| 2007/C 069/34 | Case C-70/07: Action brought on 9 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany | 14 |
| 2007/C 069/35 | Case C-77/07: Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic | 15 |
| 2007/C 069/36 | Case C-80/07: Action brought on 14 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic | 15 |
| 2007/C 069/37 | Case C-81/07: Action brought on 14 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic | 16 |
| 2007/C 069/38 | Case C-83/07: Action brought on 14 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic | 16 |
| | Court of First Instance |
| 2007/C 069/39 | Case T-340/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2007 — France Télécom SA v Commission (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Market for services in high-speed internet access — Predatory pricing) | 17 |
| 2007/C 069/40 | Case T-166/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2007 — C v Commission (Officials — Enforcement of a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate — Action for damages — Breach of administrative duty — Loss of opportunity) | 17 |
| 2007/C 069/41 | Case T-242/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2007 — Commission v IAMA Consulting (Esprit Programme — Community financing — Counterclaim brought pursuant to an arbitration clause — Reimbursement of excessive amounts of aid paid by the Commission) | 17 |
| 2007/C 069/42 | Case T-362/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2007 — Minin v Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures in respect of Liberia — Freezing of funds of persons associated with Charles Taylor — Competence of the Community — Fundamental rights — Action for annulment) | 18 |
| 2007/C 069/43 | Case T-236/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2007 — Aldershoff v Commission (Career development report — 2003 appraisal procedure — Manifest error of assessment — Failure to state reasons — Right to be heard) | 18 |
| 2007/C 069/44 | Case T-447/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 January 2007 — SPM v Commission (Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Import regime for bananas originating from ACP countries on the territory of the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 2015/2005 — Action for annulment — Standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissible) | 19 |
| 2007/C 069/45 | Case T-129/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 January 2007 — Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret and Akar v Commission (Action for annulment — Essential procedural requirements — Natural and legal persons required to be represented by a lawyer entitled to practise before a court of a Member State — Application in proper form lodged out-of-time — Inadmissibility of the action) | 19 |
| 2007/C 069/46 | Case T-14/07: Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities | 20 |
| 2007/C 069/47 | Case T-15/07: Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities | 20 |
| 2007/C 069/48 | Case T-18/07: Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Kronberger v European Parliament | 21 |
| 2007/C 069/49 | Case T-19/07: Action brought on 25 January 2007 — Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission | 21 |
| 2007/C 069/50 | Case T-20/07 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2007 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 November 2006 in Case F-100/05 Chatziioannidou v Commission | 22 |
| 2007/C 069/51 | Case T-21/07: Action brought on 29 January 2007 — L'Oréal v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPALINE) | 23 |
| 2007/C 069/52 | Case T-23/07: Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen v OHIM (α) | 24 |
| 2007/C 069/53 | Case T-25/07: Action brought on 30 January 2007 — Iride and Iride Energia v Commission | 24 |
| 2007/C 069/54 | Case T-27/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — US Steel Košice v Commission | 25 |
| 2007/C 069/55 | Case T-28/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Fels-Werke GmbH and Others v Commission of the European Communities | 26 |
| 2007/C 069/56 | Case T-29/07: Action brought on 9 February 2007 — Lactalis Gestion Lait and Lactalis Investissements v Council | 27 |
| 2007/C 069/57 | Case T-31/07: Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Du Pont de Nemours (France) and Others v Commission | 28 |
| 2007/C 069/58 | Case T-32/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Slovakia v Commission | 29 |
| 2007/C 069/59 | Case T-5/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 January 2007 — Verband der Internationalen Caterer in Deutschland v Commission | 29 |
| | European Union Civil Service Tribunal |
| 2007/C 069/60 | Case F-62/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 February 2007 — Guarneri v Commission (Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Rule against overlapping allowances applicable to national allowances) | 30 |
| 2007/C 069/61 | Case F-7/07: Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Angioi v Commission | 30 |
| 2007/C 069/62 | Case F-9/07: Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Angé Serrano v Parliament | 31 |
| 2007/C 069/63 | Case F-10/07: Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Botos v Commission | 31 |
| 2007/C 069/64 | Case F-33/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2007 — Campoli v Commission | 32 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

2007/C 069/02

Taking of the oath by the new members of the Court of Justice

2

2007/C 069/03

Assignment of the Judges to the Chambers

2

2007/C 069/04

Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Grand Chamber and the Second, Third, Sixth and Seventh Chambers

2

2007/C 069/05

Taking of the oath by the new members of the Court of First Instance

3

2007/C 069/06

Case C-535/06 P: Appeal brought on 28 December 2006 by Moser Baer India Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 4 October 2006 in Case T-300/03: Moser Baer India Ltd v The Council of the European Communities

3

2007/C 069/07

Case C-2/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 4 January 2007 — Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux and Others v Region of Wallonia, Société de développement et de promotion de l'aéroport de Liège-Bierset SA, T.N.T. Express Worldwide (Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale des voies aériennes — Belgocontrol, État belge, Cargo Airlines Ltd

4

2007/C 069/08

Case C-3/07: Action brought on 11 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

5

2007/C 069/09

Case C-7/07: Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

5

2007/C 069/10

Case C-8/07: Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

6

2007/C 069/11

Case C-9/07: Action brought on 16 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

6

2007/C 069/12

Case C-10/07: Action brought on 16 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

6

2007/C 069/13

Case C-15/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2007 — 01081 Telecom AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

7

2007/C 069/14

Case C-19/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 23 January 2007 — Paul Chevassus-Marche v Groupe Danone SA, Kro beer brands SA (BKSA), Eaux minérales d'Evian SA (SAEME)

7

2007/C 069/15

Case C-25/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 25 January 2007 — Alicja Sosnowska v Izba Skarbowa we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu

7

2007/C 069/16

Case C-30/07: Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary

8

2007/C 069/17

Case C-34/07: Action brought on 30 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

8

2007/C 069/18

Case C-37/07: Action brought on 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

8

2007/C 069/19

Case C-41/07: Action brought on 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

9

2007/C 069/20

Case C-42/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto lodged on 2 February 2007 — Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP) and Baw International Ltd v Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa

9

2007/C 069/21

Case C-43/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 February 2007 — D.M.M.A. Arens-Sikken v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

9

2007/C 069/22

Case C-44/07: Action brought on 2 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

10

2007/C 069/23

Case C-50/07: Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

10

2007/C 069/24

Case C-51/07: Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

11

2007/C 069/25

Case C-53/07: Action brought on 6 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

11

2007/C 069/26

Case C-58/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

11

2007/C 069/27

Case C-59/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

12

2007/C 069/28

Case C-60/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

12

2007/C 069/29

Case C-62/07: Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

12

2007/C 069/30

Case C-63/07: Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

13

2007/C 069/31

Case C-64/07: Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

13

2007/C 069/32

Case C-65/07: Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

14

2007/C 069/33

Case C-66/07: Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

14

2007/C 069/34

Case C-70/07: Action brought on 9 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

14

2007/C 069/35

Case C-77/07: Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

15

2007/C 069/36

Case C-80/07: Action brought on 14 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

15

2007/C 069/37

Case C-81/07: Action brought on 14 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

16

2007/C 069/38

Case C-83/07: Action brought on 14 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

16

Court of First Instance

2007/C 069/39

Case T-340/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2007 — France Télécom SA v Commission (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Market for services in high-speed internet access — Predatory pricing)

17

2007/C 069/40

Case T-166/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2007 — C v Commission (Officials — Enforcement of a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate — Action for damages — Breach of administrative duty — Loss of opportunity)

17

2007/C 069/41

Case T-242/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2007 — Commission v IAMA Consulting (Esprit Programme — Community financing — Counterclaim brought pursuant to an arbitration clause — Reimbursement of excessive amounts of aid paid by the Commission)

17

2007/C 069/42

Case T-362/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2007 — Minin v Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures in respect of Liberia — Freezing of funds of persons associated with Charles Taylor — Competence of the Community — Fundamental rights — Action for annulment)

18

2007/C 069/43

Case T-236/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2007 — Aldershoff v Commission (Career development report — 2003 appraisal procedure — Manifest error of assessment — Failure to state reasons — Right to be heard)

18

2007/C 069/44

Case T-447/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 January 2007 — SPM v Commission (Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Import regime for bananas originating from ACP countries on the territory of the European Union — Regulation (EC) No 2015/2005 — Action for annulment — Standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissible)

19

2007/C 069/45

Case T-129/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 January 2007 — Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret and Akar v Commission (Action for annulment — Essential procedural requirements — Natural and legal persons required to be represented by a lawyer entitled to practise before a court of a Member State — Application in proper form lodged out-of-time — Inadmissibility of the action)

19

2007/C 069/46

Case T-14/07: Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities

20

2007/C 069/47

Case T-15/07: Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities

20

2007/C 069/48

Case T-18/07: Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Kronberger v European Parliament

21

2007/C 069/49

Case T-19/07: Action brought on 25 January 2007 — Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission

21

2007/C 069/50

Case T-20/07 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2007 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 November 2006 in Case F-100/05 Chatziioannidou v Commission

Chatziioannidou

Commission

22

2007/C 069/51

Case T-21/07: Action brought on 29 January 2007 — L'Oréal v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPALINE)

23

2007/C 069/52

Case T-23/07: Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen v OHIM (α)

24

2007/C 069/53

Case T-25/07: Action brought on 30 January 2007 — Iride and Iride Energia v Commission

24

2007/C 069/54

Case T-27/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — US Steel Košice v Commission

25

2007/C 069/55

Case T-28/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Fels-Werke GmbH and Others v Commission of the European Communities

26

2007/C 069/56

Case T-29/07: Action brought on 9 February 2007 — Lactalis Gestion Lait and Lactalis Investissements v Council

27

2007/C 069/57

Case T-31/07: Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Du Pont de Nemours (France) and Others v Commission

28

2007/C 069/58

Case T-32/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Slovakia v Commission

29

2007/C 069/59

Case T-5/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 January 2007 — Verband der Internationalen Caterer in Deutschland v Commission

29

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

2007/C 069/60

Case F-62/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 February 2007 — Guarneri v Commission (Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Rule against overlapping allowances applicable to national allowances)

30

2007/C 069/61

Case F-7/07: Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Angioi v Commission

30

2007/C 069/62

Case F-9/07: Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Angé Serrano v Parliament

31

2007/C 069/63

Case F-10/07: Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Botos v Commission

31

2007/C 069/64

Case F-33/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2007 — Campoli v Commission

32

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Court of Justice

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/1

---

(2007/C 69/01)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 56, 10.3.2007

Past publications

OJ C 42, 24.2.2007

OJ C 20, 27.1.2007

OJ C 331, 30.12.2006

OJ C 326, 30.12.2006

OJ C 310, 16.12.2006

OJ C 294, 2.12.2006

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Court of Justice

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/2

---

Taking of the oath by the new members of the Court of Justice

(2007/C 69/02)

Appointed Judges at the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 1 January 2007 (1), for the period from 1 January 2007 to 6 October 2012 and the period from 1 January 2007 to 6 October 2009, respectively, Mr Arabadjiev and Ms Toader took the oath before the Court on 12 January 2007.

---

(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2007, p. 18.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/2

---

Assignment of the Judges to the Chambers

(2007/C 69/03)

At its meeting of 16 January 2007, the Court decided to assign Mr Arabadjiev to the Third and Seventh Chambers.

The composition of the Third and Seventh Chambers is accordingly as follows:

Third Chamber

Mr Rosas, President of the Chamber,

Mr Klučka, Mr Cunha Rodrigues, Mr Lõhmus, Mr Ó Caoimh, Ms Lindh and Mr Arabadjiev, Judges

Seventh Chamber

Mr Klučka, President of the Chamber,

Mr Cunha Rodrigues, Mr Lõhmus, Mr Ó Caoimh, Ms Lindh and Mr Arabadjiev, Judges

At that meeting, the Court decided to assign Ms Toader to the Second and Sixth Chambers.

The composition of the Second and Sixth Chambers is accordingly as follows:

Second Chamber

Mr Timmermans, President of the Chamber,

Mr Kūris, Sir Konrad Schiemann, Mr Makarczyk, Mr Bay Larsen, Mr Bonichot and Ms Toader, Judges

Sixth Chamber

Mr Kūris, President of the Chamber,

Sir Konrad Schiemann, Mr Makarczyk, Mr Bay Larsen, Mr Bonichot and Ms Toader, Judges

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/2

---

Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Grand Chamber and the Second, Third, Sixth and Seventh Chambers

(2007/C 69/04)

At its meeting on 16 January 2007, the Court drew up the list, referred to in Article 11b(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Grand Chamber, as follows:

| | Mr Schintgen |
| --- | --- |

Mr Schintgen

| | Ms Toader |
| --- | --- |

Ms Toader

| | Mr Tizzano |
| --- | --- |

Mr Tizzano

| | Mr Arabadjiev |
| --- | --- |

Mr Arabadjiev

| | Mr Cunha Rodrigues |
| --- | --- |

Mr Cunha Rodrigues

| | Mr von Danwitz |
| --- | --- |

Mr von Danwitz

| | Ms Silva de Lapuerta |
| --- | --- |

Ms Silva de Lapuerta

| | Mr Bonichot |
| --- | --- |

Mr Bonichot

| | Sir Konrad Schiemann |
| --- | --- |

Sir Konrad Schiemann

| | Ms Lindh |
| --- | --- |

Ms Lindh

| | Mr Makarczyk |
| --- | --- |

Mr Makarczyk

| | Mr Bay Larsen |
| --- | --- |

Mr Bay Larsen

| | Mr Kūris |
| --- | --- |

Mr Kūris

| | Mr Ó Caoimh |
| --- | --- |

Mr Ó Caoimh

| | Mr Juhász |
| --- | --- |

Mr Juhász

| | Mr Levits |
| --- | --- |

Mr Levits

| | Mr Arestis |
| --- | --- |

Mr Arestis

| | Mr Lõhmus |
| --- | --- |

Mr Lõhmus

| | Mr Borg Barthet |
| --- | --- |

Mr Borg Barthet

| | Mr Klučka |
| --- | --- |

Mr Klučka

| | Mr Ilešič |
| --- | --- |

Mr Ilešič

| | Mr Malenovský |
| --- | --- |

Mr Malenovský

At its meeting on 16 January 2007, the Court drew up the lists, referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Second and Third Chambers, as follows:

Second Chamber

| | Sir Konrad Schiemann |
| --- | --- |

Sir Konrad Schiemann

| | Ms Toader |
| --- | --- |

Ms Toader

| | Mr Makarczyk |
| --- | --- |

Mr Makarczyk

| | Mr Bonichot |
| --- | --- |

Mr Bonichot

| | Mr Kūris |
| --- | --- |

Mr Kūris

| | Mr Bay Larsen |
| --- | --- |

Mr Bay Larsen

Third Chamber

| | Mr Cunha Rodrigues |
| --- | --- |

Mr Cunha Rodrigues

| | Mr Arabadjiev |
| --- | --- |

Mr Arabadjiev

| | Mr Klučka |
| --- | --- |

Mr Klučka

| | Ms Lindh |
| --- | --- |

Ms Lindh

| | Mr Lõhmus |
| --- | --- |

Mr Lõhmus

| | Mr O'Caoimh |
| --- | --- |

Mr O'Caoimh

At its meeting on 16 January 2007, the Court drew up the lists, referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Sixth and Seventh Chambers, as follows:

Sixth Chamber

| | Sir Konrad Schiemann |
| --- | --- |

Sir Konrad Schiemann

| | Mr Makarczyk |
| --- | --- |

Mr Makarczyk

| | Mr Bay Larsen |
| --- | --- |

Mr Bay Larsen

| | Mr Bonichot |
| --- | --- |

Mr Bonichot

| | Ms Toader |
| --- | --- |

Ms Toader

Seventh Chamber

| | Mr Cunha Rodrigues |
| --- | --- |

Mr Cunha Rodrigues

| | Mr Lõhmus |
| --- | --- |

Mr Lõhmus

| | Mr O'Caoimh |
| --- | --- |

Mr O'Caoimh

| | Ms Lindh |
| --- | --- |

Ms Lindh

| | Mr Arabadjiev |
| --- | --- |

Mr Arabadjiev

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/3

---

Taking of the oath by the new members of the Court of First Instance

(2007/C 69/05)

Appointed Judges at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 1 January 2007 (1), for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 August 2007 and the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 August 2010, respectively, Mr Chipev and Mr Ciucă took the oath before the Court on 12 January 2007.

---

(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2007, p. 19.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/3

---

Appeal brought on 28 December 2006 by Moser Baer India Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 4 October 2006 in Case T-300/03: Moser Baer India Ltd v The Council of the European Communities

(Case C-535/06 P)

(2007/C 69/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Moser Baer India Ltd (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, Δικηγόρος, R. MacLean and J. Branton, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, Committee of European CD-R and DVD+/-R Manufacturers (CECMA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the Court of First Instance's judgment of 4 October 2006 in case T-300/03, Moser Baer India Limited v Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the Court of First Instance's judgment of 4 October 2006 in case T-300/03, Moser Baer India Limited v Council of the European Union;

| — | confirm the same form of order requested at the proceedings before the Court of First Instance in Case T-300/03, Moser Baer India Limited v Council of the European Union, namely to annul Council Regulation (EC) 960/2003 (1) in so far as it applies to the Appellant, |
| --- | --- |

—

confirm the same form of order requested at the proceedings before the Court of First Instance in Case T-300/03, Moser Baer India Limited v Council of the European Union, namely to annul Council Regulation (EC) 960/2003 (1) in so far as it applies to the Appellant,

| — | order the Council to bear the Appellant's costs of this appeal as well as the Appellant's costs in case T-300/03, Moser Baer India Limited v Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to bear the Appellant's costs of this appeal as well as the Appellant's costs in case T-300/03, Moser Baer India Limited v Council of the European Union.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant relies upon three grounds of appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance.

The first ground of appeal relates to the infringement by the Court of First Instance of the principles of coherence and diligent investigation in determining the amount of the countervailable duty that was assessed against imports of CD-Rs into the European Community under the Contested Regulation. Under this ground of appeal, the Appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance did not abide by the above-mentioned principles when confirming that the Community Institutions acted legally when classifying all the Appellant's assets in the category of assets that benefited for countervailable subsidy. This resulted in a failure of the Court of First Instance to abide by the above-mentioned principles of Community law.

The second ground of appeal consists of two limbs namely that: (i) the Court of First Instance failed to appraise correctly the conflicting evidence on the record and in the Contested Regulation of a key element in the determination of injury, namely the price of Indian CD-R imports, over the course of the Injury Investigation Period; and (ii) that the Court of First Instance's endorsement of the findings in the Contested Regulation relating to stock levels of the Community CD-R industry constituted a factor supporting a finding of injury in the Contested Regulation.

The third ground of appeal relates to the Court of First Instance's failure to take proper account of the terms of Article 8(7) of the Community's Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation and its failure to take into account the impact of factors unrelated to imports of CD-Rs from India when examining the causal link between Indian imports and the alleged injury to the Community CD-R industry.

---

(1)  JO L 138, p. 1.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/4

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 4 January 2007 — Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux and Others v Region of Wallonia, Société de développement et de promotion de l'aéroport de Liège-Bierset SA, T.N.T. Express Worldwide (Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale des voies aériennes — Belgocontrol, État belge, Cargo Airlines Ltd

(Case C-2/07)

(2007/C 69/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux and Others

Defendants: Region of Wallonia, Société de développement et de promotion de l'aéroport de Liège-Bierset SA, T.N.T. Express Worldwide (Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale des voies aériennes — Belgocontrol, État belge, Cargo Airlines Ltd

Questions referred

| ‘1. | Does an agreement between public authorities and a private undertaking, signed with a view to having that undertaking become operational at an airport with a runway more than 2 100 metres in length, featuring an exact description of work on the infrastructure to be carried out in relation to the adaptation of the runway, without its being extended, and the construction of a control tower with a view to permitting large aircraft to fly 24 hours per day and 365 days per year, and which provides for both nighttime and daytime flights with effect from the date at which the undertaking became operational at that airport constitute a project within the meaning of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1), as applicable before its amendment by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2)? |
| --- | --- |

‘1.

Does an agreement between public authorities and a private undertaking, signed with a view to having that undertaking become operational at an airport with a runway more than 2 100 metres in length, featuring an exact description of work on the infrastructure to be carried out in relation to the adaptation of the runway, without its being extended, and the construction of a control tower with a view to permitting large aircraft to fly 24 hours per day and 365 days per year, and which provides for both nighttime and daytime flights with effect from the date at which the undertaking became operational at that airport constitute a project within the meaning of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1), as applicable before its amendment by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2)?

| 2. | Does the work to modify the infrastructure of an existing airport with a view to adapting it to a projected increase in the number of nighttime and daytime flights, without extension of the runway, correspond to the notion of a “project”, for which an impact assessment is required within the terms of Articles 1, 2 and 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as applicable before its amendment by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the work to modify the infrastructure of an existing airport with a view to adapting it to a projected increase in the number of nighttime and daytime flights, without extension of the runway, correspond to the notion of a “project”, for which an impact assessment is required within the terms of Articles 1, 2 and 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as applicable before its amendment by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997?

| 3. | Since a projected increase in the activity of an airport is not directly referred to in the annexes to Directive 85/337/EEC, must the Member State in question nevertheless take account of that increase when examining the potential environmental effect of modifications made to the infrastructures of that airport with a view to adapting it for that increase in activity?’ |
| --- | --- |

3.

Since a projected increase in the activity of an airport is not directly referred to in the annexes to Directive 85/337/EEC, must the Member State in question nevertheless take account of that increase when examining the potential environmental effect of modifications made to the infrastructures of that airport with a view to adapting it for that increase in activity?’

---

(1)  OJ L 175, p. 40.

(2)  OJ L 73, p. 5.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/5

---

Action brought on 11 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-3/07)

(2007/C 69/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and R. Troosters, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (1) and, in any event by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (1) and, in any event by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2003/110/EC expired on 5 December 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 321, 2003, p. 26.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/5

---

Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-7/07)

(2007/C 69/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils, Agent)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art (1) and, in any event by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art (1) and, in any event by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| — | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2001/84/EC expired on 31 December 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 272, 2001, p. 32.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/6

---

Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-8/07)

(2007/C 69/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils, Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/84/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, or in any event by not informing the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/84/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, or in any event by not informing the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| — | Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed into national law expired on 31 December 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 272, p. 32.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/6

---

Action brought on 16 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-9/07)

(2007/C 69/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and G. Rozet, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (1) or, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (1) or, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

| — | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2002/74/EC expired on 8 October 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 270, 2002, p. 10.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/6

---

Action brought on 16 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-10/07)

(2007/C 69/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren, G. Rozet, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (1), or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (1), or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2002/74/EC expired on 8 October 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 270, 2002, p. 10.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2007 — 01081 Telecom AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-15/07)

(2007/C 69/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: 01081 Telecom AG

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Question referred

Is it consistent with the first sentence of Article 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and Article 7 of Directive 2002/19/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) if, under national law, a statutory requirement formerly provided for in that law under which interconnection charges are to be calculated by reference to the cost of the efficient provision of services is to be maintained temporarily, even though there is no obligation to do so under Community law?

---

(1)  OJ L 108, p. 33.

(2)  OJ L 108, p. 7.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 23 January 2007 — Paul Chevassus-Marche v Groupe Danone SA, Kro beer brands SA (BKSA), Eaux minérales d'Evian SA (SAEME)

(Case C-19/07)

(2007/C 69/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de Cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Paul Chevassus-Marche

Defendants: Groupe Danone SA, Kro beer brands SA (BKSA), Eaux minérales d'Evian SA (SAEME)

Question referred

Is Article 7(2) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a commercial agent entrusted with a specific geographical area is entitled to commission where a commercial transaction between a third party and a customer belonging to that area has been concluded without any action, either direct or indirect, on the principal's part?

---

(1)  OJ L 382, 1986, p. 17.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 25 January 2007 — Alicja Sosnowska v Izba Skarbowa we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu

(Case C-25/07)

(2007/C 69/15)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alicja Sosnowska

Defendant: Dyrektor Izba Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the third paragraph of Article 5 EC, in conjunction with Article 2 of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC (1) of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes and Article 18(4) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (2) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, confer on a Member State the right to incorporate into national provisions on the tax on goods and services the rules laid down in Articles 97(5) and (7) of the Ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług (Law on the tax on goods and services) of 11 March 2004 ...? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the third paragraph of Article 5 EC, in conjunction with Article 2 of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC (1) of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes and Article 18(4) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (2) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, confer on a Member State the right to incorporate into national provisions on the tax on goods and services the rules laid down in Articles 97(5) and (7) of the Ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług (Law on the tax on goods and services) of 11 March 2004 ...?

| 2. | Do the rules laid down in Articles 97(5) and (7) of the Ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług of 11 March 2004 ... constitute special measures to prevent certain types of tax evasion and avoidance within the meaning of Article 27(1) of the Sixth Directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the rules laid down in Articles 97(5) and (7) of the Ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług of 11 March 2004 ... constitute special measures to prevent certain types of tax evasion and avoidance within the meaning of Article 27(1) of the Sixth Directive?

---

(1)  OJ L 71, 1967, p. 1301.

(2)  OJ L 145, p. 1.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/8

---

Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary

(Case C-30/07)

(2007/C 69/16)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and B.D. Simon, acting as Agent(s))

Defendant(s): Republic of Hungary

Form of order sought

| — | A declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (1) or by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

A declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (1) or by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

| — | An order that the Republic of Hungary pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

An order that the Republic of Hungary pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for the implementation of the directive in national law expired on 23 January 2006.

---

(1)  OJ L 16, 2003, p. 44.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/8

---

Action brought on 30 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-34/07)

(2007/C 69/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, Agent)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2003/109/EC expired on 23 January 2006.

---

(1)  OJ L 16, 2004, p. 44.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/8

---

Action brought on 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-37/07)

(2007/C 69/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, Agent)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| — | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2003/109/EC expired on 23 January 2006.

---

(1)  OJ L 16, 2004, p. 44.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/9

---

Action brought on 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-41/07)

(2007/C 69/19)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Caeiros and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

| — | principally, a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/28/EC (1) of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

principally, a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/28/EC (1) of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of that directive;

| — | or, a declaration that, by failing in any event to communicate those provisions to the Commission of the European Communities, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

or, a declaration that, by failing in any event to communicate those provisions to the Commission of the European Communities, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| — | an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition into domestic law of that directive expired on 29 January 2006.

---

(1)  OJ L 91, 2005, p. 13.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto lodged on 2 February 2007 — Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP) and Baw International Ltd v Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa

(Case C-42/07)

(2007/C 69/20)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP) and Baw International Ltd

Defendant: Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the monopoly granted to Santa Casa [da Misericórdia de Lisboa], when relied on against Baw [International Ltd], that is to say, against a provider of services established in another Member State in which it lawfully provides similar services, which has no physical establishment in Portugal, constitute an impediment to the free provision of services, in breach of the principles of freedom to provide services, freedom of establishment and the free movement of payments enshrined in Articles 49, 43 and 56 respectively of the EC Treaty? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the monopoly granted to Santa Casa [da Misericórdia de Lisboa], when relied on against Baw [International Ltd], that is to say, against a provider of services established in another Member State in which it lawfully provides similar services, which has no physical establishment in Portugal, constitute an impediment to the free provision of services, in breach of the principles of freedom to provide services, freedom of establishment and the free movement of payments enshrined in Articles 49, 43 and 56 respectively of the EC Treaty?

| 2. | Is it contrary to Community law, in particular to the abovementioned principles, for rules of domestic law such as those at issue in the main proceedings first to establish a monopoly in favour of a single body for the operation of lotteries and mutual betting and then to extend that monopoly to ‘the entire national territory, including ... the internet’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it contrary to Community law, in particular to the abovementioned principles, for rules of domestic law such as those at issue in the main proceedings first to establish a monopoly in favour of a single body for the operation of lotteries and mutual betting and then to extend that monopoly to ‘the entire national territory, including ... the internet’?

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 February 2007 — D.M.M.A. Arens-Sikken v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-43/07)

(2007/C 69/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: D.M.M.A. Arens-Sikken

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) be interpreted as precluding a Member State from taxing the inheritance under inheritance law of immovable property situated in that Member State and forming part of the estate of a person resident in another Member State at the time of his death on the basis of the value of the immovable property without account being taken of overendowment debts owed by the inheritor by reason of a testamentary parental partition inter vivos? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) be interpreted as precluding a Member State from taxing the inheritance under inheritance law of immovable property situated in that Member State and forming part of the estate of a person resident in another Member State at the time of his death on the basis of the value of the immovable property without account being taken of overendowment debts owed by the inheritor by reason of a testamentary parental partition inter vivos?

| 2. | If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative and if it must also be determined by means of a comparison whether and, if so, to what extent overendowment debts must be taken into account, what method of comparison — one of the two methods referred to in 3.6.6 [of the judgment] or another method entirely — must be used in a case such as the present to determine whether the inheritance duty which would have been levied if the testator had been resident in the Netherlands at the time of his death would have been less than the transfer duty? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative and if it must also be determined by means of a comparison whether and, if so, to what extent overendowment debts must be taken into account, what method of comparison — one of the two methods referred to in 3.6.6 [of the judgment] or another method entirely — must be used in a case such as the present to determine whether the inheritance duty which would have been levied if the testator had been resident in the Netherlands at the time of his death would have been less than the transfer duty?

| 3. | Does it make any difference to the analysis of the obligation possibly imposed by the EC Treaty on the Member State in which the immovable property is situated to permit the deduction of the overendowment debts in whole or in part whether that deduction leads to a smaller concession to prevent double taxation in the Member State which considers itself to have authority to tax the estate by virtue of the testator's place of residence? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does it make any difference to the analysis of the obligation possibly imposed by the EC Treaty on the Member State in which the immovable property is situated to permit the deduction of the overendowment debts in whole or in part whether that deduction leads to a smaller concession to prevent double taxation in the Member State which considers itself to have authority to tax the estate by virtue of the testator's place of residence?

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/10

---

Action brought on 2 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-44/07)

(2007/C 69/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC or, in any event, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC or, in any event, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| — | order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 14 February 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 41, 2003, p. 26.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/10

---

Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-50/07)

(2007/C 69/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

| — | A declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

A declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

| — | an order that the Kingdom of Spain should pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Kingdom of Spain should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition into domestic law of Directive 2004/24/EC expired on 30 October 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 136, 2004, p. 85.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/11

---

Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-51/07)

(2007/C 69/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| — | order Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2003/110/EC expired on 5 December 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 321, 6.12.2003, p. 26.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/11

---

Action brought on 6 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-53/07)

(2007/C 69/25)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and C. Zadra)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by not adopting, or in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/104/EC (1) of 14 October 2004 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 72/245/EEC relating to the radio interference (electromagnetic compatibility) of vehicles and amending Directive 70/156/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting, or in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/104/EC (1) of 14 October 2004 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 72/245/EEC relating to the radio interference (electromagnetic compatibility) of vehicles and amending Directive 70/156/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2004/104 into domestic law expired on 31 December 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 337, 13.11.2004, p. 13.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/11

---

Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-58/07)

(2007/C 69/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provision necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC (1) of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air and, in any event, by not communicating them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provision necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC (1) of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air and, in any event, by not communicating them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| — | order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for adapting domestic law to Directive 2003/110/EC expired on 6 December 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 321, p. 26.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/12

---

Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-59/07)

(2007/C 69/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durante and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

| — | A declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC (1) of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

A declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC (1) of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| — | an order that the Kingdom of Spain should pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Kingdom of Spain should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for the transposition into domestic law of Directive 2003/109/EC expired on 23 February 2006.

---

(1)  OJ L 16, 2004, p. 44.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/12

---

Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

(Case C-60/07)

(2007/C 69/28)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by M. Šmerdová and L. Pignataro, Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/33/EC (1) of 22 March 2004 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for blood and blood components, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/33/EC (1) of 22 March 2004 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for blood and blood components, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of that directive;

| — | order the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 8 February 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 91, 2004, p. 25.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/12

---

Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-62/07)

(2007/C 69/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Recchia, Agents, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/28/EC of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use (1), as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/28/EC of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use (1), as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31(1) of that directive;

| — | order Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for the implementation of Directive 2005/28/EC expired on 29 January 2006.

---

(1)  OJ L 91, p. 38.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/13

---

Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-63/07)

(2007/C 69/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and I. Kaufmann-Bühler, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the transposition of Directive 2002/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibration) (sixteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), or to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the transposition of Directive 2002/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibration) (sixteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), or to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| — | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Grounds and principal arguments

The time-limit for transposition of the Directive expired on 6 July 2005

---

(1)  OJ L 177, p. 13.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/13

---

Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-64/07)

(2007/C 69/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain paints and varnishes and vehicle refinishing products and amending Directive 1999/13/EC (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of that Directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain paints and varnishes and vehicle refinishing products and amending Directive 1999/13/EC (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of that Directive.

| — | order Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 30 October 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 143, p. 87.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/14

---

Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-65/07)

(2007/C 69/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that Directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that Directive.

| — | order Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 30 October 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 136, p. 85.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/14

---

Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-66/07)

(2007/C 69/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that Directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that Directive.

| — | order Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 30 October 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 136, p. 34.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/14

---

Action brought on 9 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-70/07)

(2007/C 69/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and I. Kaufmann-Bühler, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2002/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibration) (sixteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2002/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibration) (sixteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) of that directive;

| — | order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 6 July 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 177, 2002, p. 13.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/15

---

Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-77/07)

(2007/C 69/35)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and W. Wils)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/84/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/84/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2001/84 into domestic law expired on 31 December 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 272, 13.10.2001, p. 32.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/15

---

Action brought on 14 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-80/07)

(2007/C 69/36)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and B. Stromsky)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by not adopting, or in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/28/EC (1) of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting, or in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/28/EC (1) of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2005/28 into domestic law expired on 29 November 2006.

---

(1)  OJ L 91, 9.4.2005, p. 13.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/16

---

Action brought on 14 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-81/07)

(2007/C 69/37)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and K. Simonsson)

Defendant: the Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

| — | declare that, by not developing, approving and implementing waste reception and handling plans for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not developing, approving and implementing waste reception and handling plans for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (1);

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposing Directive 2000/59/EC into national law expired on 28 December 2000.

---

(1)  OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 81.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/16

---

Action brought on 14 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-83/07)

(2007/C 69/38)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and J.-B. Laignelot)

Defendant: the Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought:

The Court is asked to:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/12/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, and in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Hellenic Republic has infringed its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/12/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, and in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Hellenic Republic has infringed its obligations under that directive;

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposing Directive 2004/12/EC into national law expired on 18.8.2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 47, 18.2.2004, p. 26.

---

Court of First Instance

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/17

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 January 2007 — France Télécom SA v Commission

(Case T-340/03) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Market for services in high-speed internet access - Predatory pricing)

(2007/C 69/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: France Télécom SA, formerly Wanadoo Interactive SA (Paris, France) (represented by: O. Brouwer, H. Calvet, M. Pittie, J. Philippe and T. Janssens, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Rating and É. Gippini Fournier, Agents, and subsequently by É. Gippini Fournier)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission decision of 16 July 2003, concerning a proceeding under Article [82 EC] (Case COMP/38.233 — Wanadoo Interactive) or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 29.11.2003.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/17

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2007 — C v Commission

(Case T-166/04) (1)

(Officials - Enforcement of a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate - Action for damages - Breach of administrative duty - Loss of opportunity)

(2007/C 69/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: C (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Sambon, P.-P. Van Gehuchten and P. Reyniers, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

Re:

Firstly, application for annulment of the implied decision to reject the applicant's application for enforcement of the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on [confidential] (2) in Case [confidential] and, in so far as necessary, the decision to reject the applicant's complaint of 12 February 2004 and, secondly, application for compensation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment.

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the applicant, Mr C, the sum of EUR 15 000. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the applicant, Mr C, the sum of EUR 15 000.

| 3. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 10.7.2004.

(2)  Confidential information omitted.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/17

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2007 — Commission v IAMA Consulting

(Case T-242/04) (1)

(Esprit Programme - Community financing - Counterclaim brought pursuant to an arbitration clause - Reimbursement of excessive amounts of aid paid by the Commission)

(2007/C 69/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. de March, acting as Agent, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant: IAMA Consulting Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: initially by V. Salvatore, then P. Sorteni, lawyers)

Re:

Application by the Commission for an order that IAMA Consulting Srl reimburse the amount that the Commission unduly paid to it in the course of the performance of the Regis 22337 contract and the Refiag 23200 contracts, which are covered by the Community's Esprit Programme.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders IAMA Consulting Srl to pay the Commission the sum of EUR 31 757 together with default interest of EUR 4,78530 per day from 16 May 2004 until payment of the final balance, relating to the Refiag contract, from which the sums paid to date by IAMA are to be deducted, and the sum of EUR 164 345, together with default interest of EUR 24,76432 per day from 16 May 2004 until payment of the final balance, relating to the Regis contract, from which the payments made by IAMA to date are to be deducted. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders IAMA Consulting Srl to pay the Commission the sum of EUR 31 757 together with default interest of EUR 4,78530 per day from 16 May 2004 until payment of the final balance, relating to the Refiag contract, from which the sums paid to date by IAMA are to be deducted, and the sum of EUR 164 345, together with default interest of EUR 24,76432 per day from 16 May 2004 until payment of the final balance, relating to the Regis contract, from which the payments made by IAMA to date are to be deducted.

| 2. | Orders IAMA Consulting to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders IAMA Consulting to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the Commission.

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear half of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear half of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 47, 21.2.2004.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/18

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2007 — Minin v Commission

(Case T-362/04) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in respect of Liberia - Freezing of funds of persons associated with Charles Taylor - Competence of the Community - Fundamental rights - Action for annulment)

(2007/C 69/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Leonid Minin (Tel-Aviv, Israel) (represented by: T. Ballarino and C. Bovio, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti, L. Visaggio and C. Brown, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Marquardt and F. Ruggeri Laderchi, and subsequently by S. Marquardt and A. Vitro, Agents); and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by R. Caudwell, and subsequently by E. Jenkinson, Agents)

Re:

Originally, annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1149/2004 of 22 June 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 concerning further restrictive measures in relation to Liberia (OJ 2004 L 222, p. 17), and, subsequently, annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2005 of 9 June 2005 amending Regulation No 872/2004 (OJ 2005 L 146, p. 5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to bear, in addition to his own costs, those of the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to bear, in addition to his own costs, those of the Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Council and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/18

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2007 — Aldershoff v Commission

(Case T-236/05) (1)

(Career development report - 2003 appraisal procedure - Manifest error of assessment - Failure to state reasons - Right to be heard)

(2007/C 69/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Willlem Aldershoff (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, X. Martin, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and M. Velardo, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the applicant's career development report for the 2003 appraisal procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the career development report of the applicant, Mr Willem Aldershoff, for the 2003 appraisal procedure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the career development report of the applicant, Mr Willem Aldershoff, for the 2003 appraisal procedure.

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/19

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 January 2007 — SPM v Commission

(Case T-447/05) (1)

(Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Import regime for bananas originating from ACP countries on the territory of the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 2015/2005 - Action for annulment - Standing to bring proceedings - Inadmissible)

(2007/C 69/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) (Douala, Cameroon) (represented by: initially P. Soler Couteaux and S. Cahn, and subsequently, B. Doré)

Defendant: Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2015/2005 of 9 December 2005 on imports during January and February 2006 of bananas originating in ACP countries under the tariff quota opened by Council Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 on the tariff rates for bananas (OJ 2005 L 324, p. 5).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

| 2. | Orders Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/19

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 January 2007 — Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret and Akar v Commission

(Case T-129/06) (1)

(Action for annulment - Essential procedural requirements - Natural and legal persons required to be represented by a lawyer entitled to practise before a court of a Member State - Application in proper form lodged out-of-time - Inadmissibility of the action)

(2007/C 69/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar (Ankara, Turkey) (represented by: Ç. Şahin, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. van Nuffel and F. Hoffmeister, Agents)

Re:

Application for, first, annulment of Decision MK/KS/DELTUR/(2005)/SecE/D/1614 of 23 December 2005 concerning the award of a public works contract for the construction of educational establishments in the Provinces of Siirt and Diyarbakir (EuropeAid/121601/C/W/TR) and, second, suspension of the procedure in question.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicants, Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar, shall bear their own costs and, jointly and severally, pay the Commission's costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants, Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar, shall bear their own costs and, jointly and severally, pay the Commission's costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/20

---

Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-14/07)

(2007/C 69/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, C. Schulze-Bahr, assisted by C. von Donat, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Decision C(2006) 5163 final of 3 November 2006 on the reduction of the financial assistance of the ERDF in the Operational Program for Nordrhein-Westfalen in the framework of the Community initiative KMU (ERDF No 94.02.10.029) in so far as the reduction exceeds the ERDF assistance not claimed; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision C(2006) 5163 final of 3 November 2006 on the reduction of the financial assistance of the ERDF in the Operational Program for Nordrhein-Westfalen in the framework of the Community initiative KMU (ERDF No 94.02.10.029) in so far as the reduction exceeds the ERDF assistance not claimed;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision reduces the assistance of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in the Operational Program for Nordrhein-Westfalen in the framework of the Community Initiative.

In support of its action, the applicant submits that the contested decision infringes the Commission's authorising decision K(95) 1427 of 11 July 1995.

Moreover, it submits that there is an infringement of Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 (1), as the conditions for reduction are not satisfied. It also submits that the departures from the indicative financing plan do not constitute a significant change of the program.

Even if there were a significant change of the program, the applicant submits that the Commission previously agreed to a flexible application of the indicative financing plans by virtue of its Guidelines for the financial closure of operational measures (1994-1999) from the Structural Funds (SEK (1999) 1316).

On the assumption that the conditions for a reduction are satisfied, the applicant complains that the defendant failed to use its discretion in relation to the specific program. The Commission should have considered whether a reduction of the ERDF assistance was proportionate.

---

(1)  CounciL Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, p. 1).

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/20

---

Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-15/07)

(2007/C 69/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, C. Schulze-Bahr, assisted by C. von Donat, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2006) 5164 final of 3 November 2006 on the reduction of ERDF financial assistance granted by Decision C(95) 1739 of 27 July 1995 in the Operational Programme for Nordrhein-Westfalen in the framework of the Community initiative RECHAR II (ERDF No 94.02.10.041 /ARINCO No 94.DE.16.056); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2006) 5164 final of 3 November 2006 on the reduction of ERDF financial assistance granted by Decision C(95) 1739 of 27 July 1995 in the Operational Programme for Nordrhein-Westfalen in the framework of the Community initiative RECHAR II (ERDF No 94.02.10.041 /ARINCO No 94.DE.16.056);

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision reduces the assistance of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in the Operational Program for Nordrhein-Westfalen in the framework of the Community Initiative RECHAR II.

In support of its action, the applicant submits that the contested decision infringes the Commission's authorising decision K(95) 1739 of 27 July 1995.

Moreover, it submits that there is an infringement of Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 (1), as the conditions for reduction are not satisfied. It also submits that the departures from the indicative financing plan do not constitute a significant change of the program.

Even if there were a significant change of the program, the applicant submits that the Commission previously agreed to a flexible application of the indicative financing plans by virtue of its Guidelines for the financial closure of operational measures (1994-1999) from the Structural Funds (SEK (1999) 1316).

On the assumption that the conditions for a reduction are satisfied, the applicant complains that the defendant failed to use its discretion in relation to the specific program. The Commission should have considered whether a reduction of the ERDF assistance was proportionate.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, p. 1).

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/21

---

Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Kronberger v European Parliament

(Case T-18/07)

(2007/C 69/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans Kronberger (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: W.L. Weh, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Parliament to declare the mandate of one of its Members valid, by reason of its nullity; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Parliament to declare the mandate of one of its Members valid, by reason of its nullity;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant's standard costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant's standard costs.

Grounds and principal arguments

The applicant stood for election to the European Parliament in the European Parliament elections which were held on 13 June 2004 in Austria.

By the present action, he challenges the decision of the European Parliament of 28 April 2005, according to which the applicant's challenge to the validity of the mandate of one of its Members is to be regarded as unfounded.

In support of his claim, the applicant submits in particular that the Austrian rules on allocation of preferential votes are incompatible with Article 1 of the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage (1) and are thus contrary to Community law.

---

(1)  OJ L 278, 8.10.1976, p. 5.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/21

---

Action brought on 25 January 2007 — Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission

(Case T-19/07)

(2007/C 69/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer and E. de Boissieu, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | order the immediate cessation of the acts of infringement and of disclosure by the European Community, acting through the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the immediate cessation of the acts of infringement and of disclosure by the European Community, acting through the Commission;

| — | order the confiscation of all support material held by the Commission and by the company GOSSELIES on which are reproduced the information technology developments carried out by GOSSELIES from the EC-SYSTRAN Unix and SYSTRAN Unix versions in fraud of SYSTRAN's rights and its delivery up to SYSTRAN, or, at the very least, its destruction under the control of an officer of the Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the confiscation of all support material held by the Commission and by the company GOSSELIES on which are reproduced the information technology developments carried out by GOSSELIES from the EC-SYSTRAN Unix and SYSTRAN Unix versions in fraud of SYSTRAN's rights and its delivery up to SYSTRAN, or, at the very least, its destruction under the control of an officer of the Court;

| — | order the European Community, acting through the Commission, to pay damages to compensate for the damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the infringement committed by the Commission and, particularly, by the DGT in the performance of its duties; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Community, acting through the Commission, to pay damages to compensate for the damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the infringement committed by the Commission and, particularly, by the DGT in the performance of its duties;

| — | such damages are:






  — | for SYSTRAN Luxembourg, EUR 1 531 000; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

such damages are:

—

for SYSTRAN Luxembourg, EUR 1 531 000;

| — | for SYSTRAN SA, EUR 47 014 000 subject to addition, and EUR 2 000 000 for non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

for SYSTRAN SA, EUR 47 014 000 subject to addition, and EUR 2 000 000 for non-material damage;

| — | order the Court's decision to be published, at the Commission's expense, in specialist journals, reviews and internet sites of SYSTRAN's choice; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Court's decision to be published, at the Commission's expense, in specialist journals, reviews and internet sites of SYSTRAN's choice;

| — | in any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By user licence agreements relating to the SYSTRAN machine translation software program concluded between the applicants' predecessors in title and the Commission, the latter obtained the right to use the software program for its own needs and for those of the European authorities. The applicants submit that the agreements did not assign any of the intellectual property rights in the SYSTRAN software program to the Commission. From 1999 to 2002, SYSTRAN, through its subsidiary SYSTRAN Luxembourg, brought about, for the Commission, the migration to the new system of exploitation. The contract signed for that purpose with the Commission provided that the Commission's entire translation system would remain its property, ‘without prejudice, however, to any pre-existing intellectual and industrial property rights’.

In October 2003, the Commission published a call for tenders for the award of a contract relating to the ‘maintenance and linguistic enhancement of the European Commission's machine translation service and associated services’ (1). The applicants did not participate in that procedure. SYSTRAN nevertheless submitted its reservations on the subject-matter of the call for tenders and the ensuing contract since, in its submission, it was liable to infringe its intellectual property rights in the software program.

In this action, the applicants claim that the award of the contract to a company other than SYSTRAN infringes, in itself, their intellectual property rights and necessitates disclosure of their know-how to the party awarded the contract. They claim that since the carrying-out of the tasks required by the call for tenders consists, among other things, of effecting alterations and adaptations to the system originally conceived by SYSTRAN, it at least requires its prior agreement. They maintain, therefore, that by not having required such agreement, the Commission is guilty of infringement of the intellectual property rights relating to the SYSTRAN system and, consequently, of disclosure of the applicants' know-how in breach of Article 4 of Directive 91/250/EEC (2) as transposed into the national legal systems.

The applicants then submit that the infringement of the SYSTRAN software program and the disclosure of their know-how are wrongful acts which incur the Community's liability under Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC. They claim also that those wrongful acts caused damage which should be made good by the Commission.

---

(1)  Call for tenders No 2003/S 191-171556 (OJ 2003 S 191).

(2)  Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ L 122, 1991, p. 42).

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/22

---

Appeal brought on 26 January 2007 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 November 2006 in Case F-100/05 Chatziioannidou v Commission

(Case T-20/07 P)

(2007/C 69/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (Brussels, Belgium), (represented by K. Hermann and D. Martin, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Eleni Chatziioannidou (Auderghem, Belgium)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 November 2006 in Case F-100/05; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 November 2006 in Case F-100/05;

| — | dismiss the action brought by Mrs Chatziioannidou; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the action brought by Mrs Chatziioannidou;

| — | order that the parties shall bear their own costs of these proceedings and of those before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the parties shall bear their own costs of these proceedings and of those before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the judgment of 14 November 2006, the setting-aside of which is claimed in the present appeal, the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) annulled the Commission's decisions of 30 November 2004 and 20 February 2005 calculating the applicant's years of pensionable service following the transfer to the Community scheme of the actuarial equivalent of the pension rights she had acquired in Greece.

In support of the application to set aside the judgment, the Commission raises a single ground of appeal alleging infringement of Regulations No 1103/97 (1) and No 974/98 (2) and of the GIP of Article 11 of Annex VIII (3). The Commission submits that the premiss on which the CST's reasoning is entirely based, arises from an erroneous interpretation of the scope of Regulation No 1103/97. The Commission maintains that, contrary to the CST's finding, the purpose of the regulation in question is the maintenance of contractual commitments undertaken by private parties and not those undertaken by public bodies. It argues also that, in any case, that statement is irrelevant to these proceedings on the ground that the Commission had undertaken no commitment in respect of Mrs Chatziioannidou at the date of the entry into effect of the euro and, therefore, the principle of continuity of contracts stated in Article 3 of Regulation No 1103/97 was not, in law, applicable to this case. On the contrary, Regulation No 974/98, above all Article 14 thereof, should, in the Commission's submission, be applied in this case and the GIP should be read in the light thereof. Consequently, in the case of a transfer, after the introduction of the euro, of pension rights acquired in Greece, a country which had adopted the euro, the provision of Article 4(4) of the GIP laying down the detailed rules for the conversion into euros of amounts transferred in a currency other than the euro, is not applicable. The Commission also claims that, contrary to the CST's decision, because of the sharing of the powers under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations between the Commission and the national authorities, Mrs Chatziioannidou could not complain of the Commission's method of calculating the amount of the actuarial equivalent transferred to the Commission by the Greek authorities because they alone had the power to select an appropriate method, the Greek authorities having already transferred to the Communities' account an amount already denominated in euros.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 on certain provisions relating to the euro (OJ 1997 L 162, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the euro (OJ 1998 L 139, p. 1).

(3)  General Implementing Provisions of Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1).

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/23

---

Action brought on 29 January 2007 — L'Oréal v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPALINE)

(Case T-21/07)

(2007/C 69/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: L'Oréal SA (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Baud, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SA Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa, en abrégé SA Spa Monopole NV (Spa, Belgium)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 October 2006 in Case R 415/2005-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 October 2006 in Case R 415/2005-1;

| — | order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The community word mark ‘SPALINE ’for the goods in class 3 (bath and shower soaps, skin moisturizers, body lotions, skin toners, astringents, skin and body cleansers, facial masks, scrubs and fragrance products) — application No 989 236

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: SA Spa Monopole NV

Mark or sign cited: The national and international word and figurative marks ‘SPA’, ‘LIP SPA’, ‘SPA SKIN CARE ’and ‘Les Thermes de Spa ’for goods in classes 3, 32, 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: The applicant develops one single plea in law in support of its application, on the basis of which it claims that the contested decision infringes Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

The applicant first argues that the contested decision failed to properly assess the requirements for the application of Article 8(5) of the CTMR, insofar as it did not take into consideration and therefore totally disregarded the descriptive and generic character of the word ‘spa ’in relation to cosmetics in the Benelux territory.

In particular, the applicant submits that the contested decision did not correctly assess several requirements provided for under Article 8(5) of the CTMR since, contrary to the findings of the First Board of Appeal, the signs at stake are not similar visually, phonetically or conceptually for the relevant consumer to establish a link between them. Moreover, the applicant suggests that the use of the ‘SPALINE ’Community trade mark is not capable of taking unfair advantage of the reputation of the earlier Benelux trade mark ‘SPA ’and, finally, that it is not used without due cause.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/24

---

Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen v OHIM (α)

(Case T-23/07)

(2007/C 69/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen GbmH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by M. Wolter, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 30 November 2006 in Case R 0808/2006-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 30 November 2006 in Case R 0808/2006-4;

| — | Declare that the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) 40/94 do not preclude publication of the mark applied for in respect of goods in Class 33 (‘alcoholic beverages (excluding beer), wines, sparkling wines and beverages containing wine’); |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) 40/94 do not preclude publication of the mark applied for in respect of goods in Class 33 (‘alcoholic beverages (excluding beer), wines, sparkling wines and beverages containing wine’);

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘α ’for goods in Class 33 (Application No 4 634 663).

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), in that it is wrongly held that absolute grounds for refusal exist. Furthermore, the scope and meaning of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 are misconstrued.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 1994, p. 1).

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/24

---

Action brought on 30 January 2007 — Iride and Iride Energia v Commission

(Case T-25/07)

(2007/C 69/53)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Iride and Iride Energia (Turin, Italy) (represented by: L.G. Radicati di Brozolo, M. Merola and C. Bazoli, avvocati)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Decision is void in so far as it classes the measures as State aid, and in so far as it suspends payment of the aid until such time as Italy has provided evidence that AEM Torino has refunded the aid declared to be unlawful and incompatible with Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 concerning tax relief for former municipal administrative bodies; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Decision is void in so far as it classes the measures as State aid, and in so far as it suspends payment of the aid until such time as Italy has provided evidence that AEM Torino has refunded the aid declared to be unlawful and incompatible with Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 concerning tax relief for former municipal administrative bodies;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The application lodged by Iride SpA and Iride Energia SpA (‘the applicants’) concerns the Decision of 8 November 2006 by which the Commission closed the proceeding initiated pursuant to Article 88(2) EC to investigate the compatibility with Community law of a refund that Italy intends to grant to AEM Torino for stranded costs in the energy sector (1).

The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance of the European Communities should declare that the Decision is void in so far as it classes as State aid the measures taken to reimburse AEM Torino in respect of the stranded costs incurred during the liberalisation of the energy sector, and in so far as it suspends payment of the aid until such time as Italy has provided the Commission with evidence that AEM Torino has not received the aid declared to be unlawful and incompatible with Decision 2003/193/EC concerning tax relief for former municipalizzate [municipal administrative bodies] (‘the Tax Relief Decision’), or with evidence that AEM Torino has reimbursed, with interest, any such aid that it may have received.

The application is based inter alia on the following main pleas:

| (a) | The measure in question does not constitute State aid in that it was not financed through the use of State resources and does not accord the recipients gratuitous advantage. |
| --- | --- |

(a)

The measure in question does not constitute State aid in that it was not financed through the use of State resources and does not accord the recipients gratuitous advantage.

| (b) | The judgment in Deggendorf
   (2) is not applicable in the present case. The Commission has failed, in particular, to show that the conditions that must be met — according to the principles that may be extracted from Deggendorf — in order for payment of the aid to be suspended, have in fact been met. (In particular, the Commission has not shown the potential cumulative effect of the new measures and the earlier measures.) In particular, the Commission has not explained how it is possible that cumulative effects can arise as a result of the aid which is the subject of the Tax Relief Decision, and measures like the stranded costs, which are designed merely to bring about equalisation, and thus the effects of which are exhausted in the past, enabling the costs incurred during the period when the market was regulated to be amortised in a manner similar to the manner in which the undertakings would have proceeded if the sector had not been liberalised before those costs had been fully amortised. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

The judgment in Deggendorf
   (2) is not applicable in the present case. The Commission has failed, in particular, to show that the conditions that must be met — according to the principles that may be extracted from Deggendorf — in order for payment of the aid to be suspended, have in fact been met. (In particular, the Commission has not shown the potential cumulative effect of the new measures and the earlier measures.) In particular, the Commission has not explained how it is possible that cumulative effects can arise as a result of the aid which is the subject of the Tax Relief Decision, and measures like the stranded costs, which are designed merely to bring about equalisation, and thus the effects of which are exhausted in the past, enabling the costs incurred during the period when the market was regulated to be amortised in a manner similar to the manner in which the undertakings would have proceeded if the sector had not been liberalised before those costs had been fully amortised.

---

(1)  OJ L 366, 21.12.2006, p. 62.

(2)  Case C-355/95 TwD v Commission [1997] ECR I-2549.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/25

---

Action brought on 7 February 2007 — US Steel Košice v Commission

(Case T-27/07)

(2007/C 69/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: US Steel Košice sro (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: E. Vermulst, lawyer, and C. Thomas, solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission decision of 29 November 2006 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Slovakia in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission decision of 29 November 2006 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Slovakia in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission decision of 29 November 2006 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances for the period 2008-2012 notified by Slovakia in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC (1).

In support of it's application, the applicant firstly alleges that the contested decision infringes Title 4, point 2(a) of Annex XIV to the Act of Accession 2003 (2) in that it incorrectly asserts that the conditions in that provision are independent obligations applying until 2009 regardless of whether Slovakia continues to grant the applicant the tax exemption that Slovakia may apply to the applicant until the end of the fiscal year 2009 notwithstanding Article 87 and 88 EC. The applicant argues that, accordingly, the decision is also contrary to criterion (4) of Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC, which provides that the national allocation plan shall be consistent with other Community legislative and policy instruments.

Secondly, the applicant submits that the contested decision infringes the principle of legitimate expectations in that the Commission at several occasion made the applicant expect that the production limitations provided for in Title 4, point 2(a) of Annex XIV to the Act of Accession would cease to apply once the applicant no longer benefited from the tax exemption.

Thirdly, the applicant contends that the contested decision is unlawful because, instead of carrying out its limited functions under Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC, the Commission carried out an entirely independent calculation of the appropriate total emissions in Slovakia and imposed this on the Slovak Republic. Thereby the Commission usurped the competence of the Member States under Articles 9 and 11 of Directive 2003/87/EC.

Fourthly, the applicant submits that the contested decision is unlawful in that it was based on a rigid mathematical calculation which was imposed without public consultation and which ignored known factors influencing emissions specific to Slovakia in the period 2008-2012. The applicant finds that this approach violated Article 9(1) and 11(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC, criteria (1), (2) and (3) of Annex III to the said directive as well as the principle of legitimate expectations. The applicant contends that insofar as the Commission possessed any margin of appreciation, the Commission committed a manifest error in that appreciation.

Finally, the applicant claims that the contested decision is vitiated by a misuse of powers as it was motivated by a desire to achieve a scarcity of allowances as such in order to drive the prices of allowances upwards.

---

(1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, 2003, p. 32).

(2)  Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ L 236, 2003, p. 33).

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/26

---

Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Fels-Werke GmbH and Others v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-28/07)

(2007/C 69/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Fels-Werke GmbH (Goslar, Germany), Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH (Aachen Germany) and Spenner Zement GmbH & Co KG (Erwitte, Germany) (represented by: H. Posser and S. Altenschmidt, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Article 1.2 of the Commission's Decision of 29 November 2006 on the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Germany pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council (document number unpublished), insofar as it declares the allocation guarantees in respect of the first action period described in Chapter 6.2 of Germany's national allocation plan under the headings ‘Additional new installations under Paragraph 11 of the ZuG 2007 ’and ‘Allocations under Paragraph 8 of the ZuG 2007 ’to be incompatible with Directive 2003/87/EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 1.2 of the Commission's Decision of 29 November 2006 on the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Germany pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council (document number unpublished), insofar as it declares the allocation guarantees in respect of the first action period described in Chapter 6.2 of Germany's national allocation plan under the headings ‘Additional new installations under Paragraph 11 of the ZuG 2007 ’and ‘Allocations under Paragraph 8 of the ZuG 2007 ’to be incompatible with Directive 2003/87/EC;

| — | annul Article 2.2 of that decision insofar as it issues to the Federal Republic of Germany instructions for the application of the allocation guarantees in respect of the first action period described in Chapter 6.2 of Germany's national allocation plan under the headings ‘Additional new installations under Paragraph 11 of the ZuG 2007 ’and ‘Allocations under Paragraph 8 of the ZuG 2007 ’and in so doing also requires the application of the same performance factor as for other comparable existing installations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 2.2 of that decision insofar as it issues to the Federal Republic of Germany instructions for the application of the allocation guarantees in respect of the first action period described in Chapter 6.2 of Germany's national allocation plan under the headings ‘Additional new installations under Paragraph 11 of the ZuG 2007 ’and ‘Allocations under Paragraph 8 of the ZuG 2007 ’and in so doing also requires the application of the same performance factor as for other comparable existing installations;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants challenge the Commission's decision of 29 November 2006 concerning the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances which Germany notified in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. In that decision the Commission objects to certain aspects of the national allocation plan for Germany on account of incompatibility with Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC (1).

The applicants, operators of installations subject to compulsory emissions trading, claim to be directly and individually concerned by the contested decision.

In support of their action that they put forward four pleas:

First of all, they submit that on 29 November 2006 the defendant was no longer entitled to reject the German national allocation plan, as the mandatory time-limit for doing so in Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC had already expired.

Moreover, on the merits, the applicants complain of an incorrect application of Article 9(3) in conjunction with the criteria of Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC. In their view, the allocation guarantees criticised by the Commission for new installations are not State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC. No unjustified preference was given to the installations in question.

In addition the contested decision contains an inadequate statement of reasons and therefore infringes Article 253 EC.

Finally, the contested decision infringes the Community principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

---

(1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, 2003, p. 32).

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/27

---

Action brought on 9 February 2007 — Lactalis Gestion Lait and Lactalis Investissements v Council

(Case T-29/07)

(2007/C 69/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Lactalis Gestion Lait and Lactalis Investissements (Laval, France) (represented by: A. Philippart, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

| — | rule that the first subparagraph of Article 1 of Council Directive 67/227/EEC, read in the light of the fourth recital in the preamble, requires the Member States to abolish and replace cumulative multi-stage turnover taxes which distort competition and hinder trade between Member States; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the first subparagraph of Article 1 of Council Directive 67/227/EEC, read in the light of the fourth recital in the preamble, requires the Member States to abolish and replace cumulative multi-stage turnover taxes which distort competition and hinder trade between Member States;

| — | rule that subparagraph 3 of Article 1 of Directive 67/227/EEC, read in the light of the eighth recital in the preamble, prohibits Member States (old or new) from maintaining or introducing measure providing for flat-rate equalisation of turnover taxes on importation or exportation in trade between Member States; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that subparagraph 3 of Article 1 of Directive 67/227/EEC, read in the light of the eighth recital in the preamble, prohibits Member States (old or new) from maintaining or introducing measure providing for flat-rate equalisation of turnover taxes on importation or exportation in trade between Member States;

| — | rule that Article 1 of First Directive 67/227/EEC replaces cumulative multi-stage taxes with the common system of value added tax and that henceforward the maintenance or introduction of cumulative multi-stage taxes which distort competition and hinder trade must be prohibited; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that Article 1 of First Directive 67/227/EEC replaces cumulative multi-stage taxes with the common system of value added tax and that henceforward the maintenance or introduction of cumulative multi-stage taxes which distort competition and hinder trade must be prohibited;

| — | rule that contrary to the objective that it set, Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, by repealing First Directive 67/227/EEC, gives, with the exception of Article 2 defining the characteristics of VAT, an incomplete and incorrect image of the existing VAT legislation and jeopardises the harmonisation of laws on turnover tax; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that contrary to the objective that it set, Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, by repealing First Directive 67/227/EEC, gives, with the exception of Article 2 defining the characteristics of VAT, an incomplete and incorrect image of the existing VAT legislation and jeopardises the harmonisation of laws on turnover tax;

| — | rule that by removing all references to the principle of principle of the prohibition on cumulative multi-stage taxes and thereby enabling the maintenance and reintroduction of turnover taxes of such a kind as to distort competition and hinder trade between Member States, the Council infringes the objectives set by Articles 3 and 93 EC and directly and individually affects the applicants' interests; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that by removing all references to the principle of principle of the prohibition on cumulative multi-stage taxes and thereby enabling the maintenance and reintroduction of turnover taxes of such a kind as to distort competition and hinder trade between Member States, the Council infringes the objectives set by Articles 3 and 93 EC and directly and individually affects the applicants' interests;

| — | annul Article 411/1 of Directive 2006/112/EC in so far as it repeals recitals 4 and 8 and subparagraphs 1 and 3 of Article 1 of Council Directive 67/227/EEC and clearly infringes Articles 3 and 93 EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 411/1 of Directive 2006/112/EC in so far as it repeals recitals 4 and 8 and subparagraphs 1 and 3 of Article 1 of Council Directive 67/227/EEC and clearly infringes Articles 3 and 93 EC;

| — | order the Council to reimburse the irrecoverable expenses incurred in these proceedings |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to reimburse the irrecoverable expenses incurred in these proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicants seek annulment of Article 411/1 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) in so far as it repeals subparagraphs 1 and 3 of Article 1 of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (2) providing for the abolition and prohibiting the maintenance or introduction of cumulative multi-stage taxes.

The applicants claim that by adopting such a directive, the Council infringes the objectives of the Treaty set out in Articles 3 and 93 EC which provide for the harmonisation of laws on turnover taxes. The applicants also submit that the repeal of Directive 67/227/EEC by Directive 2006/112/EC calls into question the principle of the prohibition on cumulative multi-stage taxes which the applicants argue are, by their very nature, of such a kind as to distort the conditions of competition and hinder trade between Member States.

---

(1)  OJ L 347, 2006, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 71, 2006, p. 1301.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/28

---

Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Du Pont de Nemours (France) and Others v Commission

(Case T-31/07)

(2007/C 69/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Du Pont de Nemours (France) SAS (Puteaux, France), Du Pont Portugal Serviços (Lisbon, Portugal), Du Pont Ibérica SL (Barcelona, Spain), Du Pont de Nemours (Belgium) BVBA (Mechelen, Belgium), Du Pont de Nemours Italiana Srl (Milan, Italy), Du Pont de Nemours (Nederland) BV (Dordrecht, The Netherlands), Du Pont de Nemours (Deutschland) GmbH (Bad Homburg, Germany), DuPont CZ s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic), DuPont Hungary Trading Ltd (Budaors, Hungary), DuPont Poland Sp.z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland), DuPont Romania Srl (Bucharest, Romania), Du Pont (UK) Ltd (Herts, United Kingdom), Du PontAGro Hellas SA (Athens, Greece), DuPont International Operations Sarl (Switzerland), DuPont Solutions (France) SAS (Puteaux, France) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, N. Rampal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of the annex of Commission Directive 2006/133/EC amending Directive 91/414/EEC to include flusilazole as active substance insofar as it fixes the expiration date of the inclusion period for flusilazole at 30 June 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the annex of Commission Directive 2006/133/EC amending Directive 91/414/EEC to include flusilazole as active substance insofar as it fixes the expiration date of the inclusion period for flusilazole at 30 June 2008;

| — | annulment of Article 3(2) of Directive 2006/133/EC amending Directive 91/414/EEC to include flusilazole as active substance insofar as it fixes the date until which Member States shall, after re-evaluation, amend or withdraw the authorisation of products containing flusilazole at 30 June 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of Article 3(2) of Directive 2006/133/EC amending Directive 91/414/EEC to include flusilazole as active substance insofar as it fixes the date until which Member States shall, after re-evaluation, amend or withdraw the authorisation of products containing flusilazole at 30 June 2008;

| — | annulment of part A of the Specific Provisions contained in annex of Commission Directive 2006/133/EC amending Directive 91/414/EEC insofar as it places a restriction on the types of crops on which the use of flusilazole may be authorised by the Member States following its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, and which must be implemented by 30 June 2007 (‘the contested restrictions’); |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of part A of the Specific Provisions contained in annex of Commission Directive 2006/133/EC amending Directive 91/414/EEC insofar as it places a restriction on the types of crops on which the use of flusilazole may be authorised by the Member States following its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC, and which must be implemented by 30 June 2007 (‘the contested restrictions’);

| — | condemn the Commission to repair any damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the contested restrictions and to set the amount of this compensation for the damage suffered by the applicants currently estimated at approximately $109 million (around €84 million); or any other amount reflecting the damage suffered or to be suffered by the applicants as further established by them in the course of this procedure especially to take due account of future damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

condemn the Commission to repair any damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the contested restrictions and to set the amount of this compensation for the damage suffered by the applicants currently estimated at approximately $109 million (around €84 million); or any other amount reflecting the damage suffered or to be suffered by the applicants as further established by them in the course of this procedure especially to take due account of future damage;

| — | in the alternative, to order the parties to produce within a reasonable period of time from the date of the judgement figures as to the amount of compensation arrived at by agreement between the parties or, in the absence of agreement, to order the parties to produce within the same period their conclusions with detailed figures; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, to order the parties to produce within a reasonable period of time from the date of the judgement figures as to the amount of compensation arrived at by agreement between the parties or, in the absence of agreement, to order the parties to produce within the same period their conclusions with detailed figures;

| — | order an interest at the rate set at the time by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, plus two percentage points, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, be paid on the amount payable as from the date of the Court's judgment until actual payment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order an interest at the rate set at the time by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, plus two percentage points, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, be paid on the amount payable as from the date of the Court's judgment until actual payment;

| — | order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of their application, the applicants seek partial annulment of the annex of Commission Directive 2006/133/EC (1), of 11 December 2006 amending Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC (2) concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (hereinafter, the ‘PPPD’) insofar as it imposes constraints both to the inclusion period of flusilazole and to the types of crops on which the use of flusilazole may be authorised by Member States.

The applicants claim that the contested restrictions are illegal insofar as they are based on a pure ‘hazard ’assessment and not a ‘risk ’assessment as required by Directive 91/414/EEC. More specifically, they submit that by reducing the inclusion period to 18 months instead of the normal period of 10 years, as well as by restricting the authorised use of flusilazole to certain crops only, the Commission has allegedly infringed its obligations deriving from the EC Treaty and the said directive and its amending regulations as well as several fundamental principles and objectives of Community law. Namely, the applicants claim that the principle of proportionality, the principle of sound administration and the right to be heard, as well as principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, and non- discrimination, and the duty to provide an appropriate statement of reasons have been violated by the defendant. It is finally submitted that the defendant misused its powers in view of the fact that the restrictions have been decided arbitrarily, irrespective of the criteria set in the directive.

In addition to the action for annulment, the applicants have also introduced an action for compensation on the basis of Articles 235 and 288(2) EC in order to repair the damage allegedly suffered by them as a result of the contested restrictions.

---

(1)  Commission Directive 2006/133/EC amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include flusilazole as active substance; OJ L 349, 2006, p. 27.

(2)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC, of 15 July 1991, concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market; OJ L 230, 1991, p. 1.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/29

---

Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Slovakia v Commission

(Case T-32/07)

(2007/C 69/58)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba, Agent)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | in the event that the Court of First Instance does not agree with the opinion set out at paragraph 95 of the application, preserve, in accordance with Article 231(2) EC, those effects of the contested decision on the basis of which the applicant decides the total quantity of allowances and their allocation to individual businessmen on their territory; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the event that the Court of First Instance does not agree with the opinion set out at paragraph 95 of the application, preserve, in accordance with Article 231(2) EC, those effects of the contested decision on the basis of which the applicant decides the total quantity of allowances and their allocation to individual businessmen on their territory;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission's Decision of 29 November 2006, which concerns the national allocation plan for the allocation of emissions allowances for greenhouse gases notified by the Slovak Republic in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). According to the contested decision, certain aspects of the Slovak national allocation plan are incompatible with Annex III to Directive No 2003/87/EC.

The applicant submits in support of its action that the Commission infringed Article 9(3) in conjunction with Article 9(1) and Article 11(2) of Directive No 2003/87/EC and the principle of legitimate expectations in that, irrespective of the national allocation plan, in the contested decision it applied its own method of setting the maximum total annual average amount of emissions allocations, appropriating to itself without authority the task which the directive entrusted to the Member States.

Furthermore, the applicant submits that, even if the defendant was entitled to apply its own method of setting the total quantity of emissions allowances, by failing to consult the applicant about the use of that method before the publication of the contested decision, it breached the principle of loyal cooperation of the institutions of the Community with the authorities of the Member States.

Moreover, the defendant infringed Article 9(3) in conjunction with Article 1 and Article 9(1) and criteria 1 to 4 of Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC and the general legal principle of proportionality, in that the method of setting the total amount of emissions allocations which it applied fails to take into account the need to increase electricity production on the applicant's territory from carbon intensive sources as a result of the obligation to close two power-plant units of the nuclear power station at Jaslovské Bohunice.

Finally, the applicant asserts that there has been a breach of the essential procedural requirement to state adequate reasons.

---

(1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32).

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/29

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 January 2007 — Verband der Internationalen Caterer in Deutschland v Commission

(Case T-5/05) (1)

(2007/C 69/59)

Language of the case: German

The President First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

---

European Union Civil Service Tribunal

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/30

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 February 2007 — Guarneri v Commission

(Case F-62/06) (1)

(Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Dependent child allowance - Rule against overlapping allowances applicable to national allowances)

(2007/C 69/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Daniela Guarneri (Woluwe-Saint-Étienne, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curall and D. Martin, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission's decision of 5 August 2005 applying the rule against overlapping allowances laid down in Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations to the deduction of the Belgian orphans' pension from the family allowance received by the applicant and also annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision of 14 February 2006 rejecting the applicant's complaint against the contested decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 5 August 2005 in so far as it deducts the amount of the Belgian orphans' pension received by Mme Guarneri from the family allowance paid to her; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 5 August 2005 in so far as it deducts the amount of the Belgian orphans' pension received by Mme Guarneri from the family allowance paid to her;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the application; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the application;

| 3. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

| 4. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006, p. 35.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/30

---

Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Angioi v Commission

(Case F-7/07)

(2007/C 69/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marie-Thérèse Angioi (Valenciennes, France) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of 14 February 2006 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) laying down the applicant's results in the pre-selection tests for contract agents EU 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 14 February 2006 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) laying down the applicant's results in the pre-selection tests for contract agents EU 25;

| — | annul the decision of EPSO and/or of the Selection Committee not to register the applicant in the data base of candidates who had passed the pre-selection tests; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of EPSO and/or of the Selection Committee not to register the applicant in the data base of candidates who had passed the pre-selection tests;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of her action.

By her first plea, the applicant claims that the Call for expression of interest published by EPSO on 20 June 2005 is contrary to Article 12(1) EC and Article 82(1) and (3)(e) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants. It criticises in particular the fact that the Call for expression of interest defined the candidates' main language as that of their nationality (or, in the case of countries with more than one official language, the language of their compulsory education) and provided for pre-selection tests to be held, for each candidate, in a language other than their main language and for a choice to be made between English, French and German. Those provisions meant that candidates, first, were prevented from declaring as their principal language another Community language of which they had thorough knowledge without however having the corresponding nationality and, second, were obliged to take the tests in one of the three aforementioned languages. The system gives rise to differential treatment based on nationality which cannot be objectively justified by the requirements of the functions to be performed.

The second plea alleges infringement of the principles of sound administration, equal treatment, objectivity and protection of legitimate expectations in that the applicant's pre-selection tests were marred by incidents which disturbed her and deprived her of some of the time allowed to her, without her having been authorised to start the tests over again or be granted extra time.

By her third plea, the applicant alleges, first, infringement of the principle of equal treatment in that the questions put were chosen in a random manner in a base containing questions of very varying levels, the validity of some of which was dubious and, second, infringement of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and transparency and the obligation to state reasons in that EPSO did not provide her with the questions put to her.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/31

---

Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Angé Serrano v Parliament

(Case F-9/07)

(2007/C 69/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Pilar Angé Serrano (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 20 March 2006 to reclassify the applicant in Grade B*6, step 8, with effect from 1 May 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 20 March 2006 to reclassify the applicant in Grade B*6, step 8, with effect from 1 May 2004;

| — | order the defendant to pay, by way of compensation for material and non-material damage and harm to the applicant's career, the sum of EUR 25 000, subject to increase and/or decrease in the course of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay, by way of compensation for material and non-material damage and harm to the applicant's career, the sum of EUR 25 000, subject to increase and/or decrease in the course of the proceedings;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the European Parliament and successful candidate in a competition for change of category (from Category C to Category B) before the reformed Staff Regulations entered into force on 1 May 2004, has already brought an action before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities against the decision to reclassify her in Grade B*5 (1).

In the present case, the applicant challenges the Parliament's decision of 20 March 2006 to reclassify her in Grade B*6, step 8. In support of her claim, the applicant relies on pleas in law which are very similar to those put forward in Case T-47/05. Moreover, she submits that, despite her new classification, the system arising from the reform of the Staff Regulations calls into question the effectiveness of her change of category from C to B, since the new classification does not confer any benefit on the applicant when her situation is compared with that of her colleagues who have not been successful in a competition for change of category.

---

(1)  Case T-47/05 Angé Serrano and Others v Parliament,
  OJ C 93, 14.4.2005, p. 36.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/31

---

Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Botos v Commission

(Case F-10/07)

(2007/C 69/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Patricia Botos (Meise, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on 30 October 2006, by which it dismissed the complaint brought by the applicant on 24 April 2006 against the six following administrative decisions: (i) decision adopted on 23 January 2006 by the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements; (ii) decision adopted on 23 January 2006 by the Head of the Brussels Payment Office of the Joint sickness insurance scheme; (iii) decision adopted on 9 February 2006 by the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements; (iv) decision adopted on 9 February 2006 by the Head of the Brussels Payment Office of the Joint sickness insurance scheme; (v) decision adopted on 20 February 2006 by the Head of the Brussels Payment Office of the Joint sickness insurance scheme; (vi) breakdown of the reimbursement of the medical expenses drawn up by the Brussels Payment Office of the Joint sickness insurance scheme, dated 23 February 2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on 30 October 2006, by which it dismissed the complaint brought by the applicant on 24 April 2006 against the six following administrative decisions: (i) decision adopted on 23 January 2006 by the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements; (ii) decision adopted on 23 January 2006 by the Head of the Brussels Payment Office of the Joint sickness insurance scheme; (iii) decision adopted on 9 February 2006 by the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements; (iv) decision adopted on 9 February 2006 by the Head of the Brussels Payment Office of the Joint sickness insurance scheme; (v) decision adopted on 20 February 2006 by the Head of the Brussels Payment Office of the Joint sickness insurance scheme; (vi) breakdown of the reimbursement of the medical expenses drawn up by the Brussels Payment Office of the Joint sickness insurance scheme, dated 23 February 2006;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul also the six aforementioned decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul also the six aforementioned decisions;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant puts forward a sole plea in law in support of her action, alleging infringement of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations and a manifest error of assessment. She maintains that, by the contested decisions, the Appointing Authority incorrectly refused to recognise that the ‘chronic fatigue syndrome ’of which she suffers is a serious illness for the purposes of the aforementioned article and, consequently, to reimburse the expenses relating to laboratory tests and medication relating to that illness. A number of documents, including an in-depth medical study, demonstrate the seriousness of the illness in question and the need to provide 100 % reimbursement, without limitation or restriction, for the costs of medication and tests which the applicant declares she needed.

---

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/32

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2007 — Campoli v Commission

(Case F-33/06) (1)

(2007/C 69/64)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register further to an amicable settlement.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006, p. 52.

---