Case C-68/05 P: Appeal brought on 11 February 2005 by Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A. against the judgment delivered on 7 December 2004 by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-240/02 Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A.v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: CCT duties, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), export levy, fraud, sugar, sugar industry

C 82/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.4.2005

The Commission therefore considers that the Hellenic Republic
is in infringement of its obligations under Articles 28, 43 and
49 of the EC Treaty and Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC.

Appeal brought on 11 February 2005 by Koninklijke
Coöperatie Cosun U.A. against the judgment delivered on
7 December 2004 by the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber) in Case T-240/02 Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun
U.A.v Commission of the European Communities

(1) OJ L 204 of 21.07.98, p. 37.

Action brought on 11 February 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Republic
of Germany

(Case C-67/05)

(2005/C 82/44)

(Language of the case: German)

the Federal Republic of Germany was
An action against
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 11 February 2005 by the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker and Sara
Pardo Quintillian, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to give effect to Direc-
tive 2000/60/EC of
the European Parliament and the
Council (1) of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework
for Community action in the field of water policy, or to
inform the Commission thereof, the Federal Republic of
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that direc-
tive;

(Case C-68/05 P)

(2005/C 82/45)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 December 2004
by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-240/
02, Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A. v Commission of the
European Communities, was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 11 February 2005 by
Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A., represented by M. Slot-
boom and N.J. Helder, advocates.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested judgment;

— Determine the dispute itself by setting aside the contested

decision;

— In the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First

Instance;

and order the Commission to pay the costs, at both first
instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

2. order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

First plea

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2000/60/EC expired
on 22 December 2003.

Infringement of Community law by virtue of the fact that the
Court of First Instance held that the levy on non-exported C-
sugar is not an import or export duty for the purposes of
Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79.

(1) OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.

Second alternative plea

The Court of First Instance disregarded the fact that the levy on
non-exported C-sugar must indeed be treated as an import duty
for the purposes of Regulation No 1430/79.

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/23

That plea is subdivided into the following limbs:

The Commission claims that the Court should:

A. The Court of First Instance disregarded the fact that the levy
on non-exported C-sugar must be regarded as a customs
duty because it pursues the same objective as a customs
duty.

B. The Court of First Instance disregarded the fact that the
manner of establishing the level of
the levy on non-
exported C-sugar indicates that the levy must be regarded
as a customs duty.

C. The Court of First Instance disregarded the fact that the
manner of establishing the amount to be levied on non-
exported C-sugar indicates that the levy must be regarded
as a customs duty.

1. Declare that by not having adopted the laws, regulations
and administrative measures necessary to comply with
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 estab-
lishing a general framework for equal treatment in employ-
ment and occupation (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Third alternative plea

The period prescribed for transposition of the directive into
domestic law expired on 2 December 2003.

In dealing with the second and third pleas put forward in the
alternative by Cosun in its application,
the Court of First
Instance acted in breach of Community law.

(1) OJ L 303 of 2 December 2000, p. 16.

That plea may be subdivided as follows:

A. In dealing with the second and third pleas put forward in
the alternative by Cosun in its application, the Court of
First Instance exceeded the bounds of the dispute.

B. The Court of First Instance unlawfully failed to deal with

the third plea put forward by Cosun in its application.

Fourth alternative plea

Infringement of
certainty and proportionality.

the principles of equal

treatment,

legal

Action brought on 14 February 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-71/05)

(2005/C 82/47)

(Language of the case: French)

Action brought on 14 February 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-70/05)

(2005/C 82/46)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 14 February 2005 by the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities, represented by Denis Martin, of its Legal
Service.

An action against
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 14 February 2005 by the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities, represented by Mikko Huttunen, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to adopt, and in any event to notify
to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/30/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March
2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with
regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restric-
tions at Community airports, (1) the Grand Duchy of Luxem-
bourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.