Case C-326/05 P: Appeal brought on 26 August 2005 by Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA against the judgment delivered on 28 June 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case T-158/03 between Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-10-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), appeal, chemical industry, dangerous substance, plant health legislation, plant health product

29.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/15

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 24 August 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the United Kingdom

1. The first plea concerns the infringement of the defendant's
right to adduce evidence relevant to the defence, which is
subsumed within the right to a fair hearing enshrined in
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; it
also raises a plea concerning the legally erroneous appraisal
of the evidence actually adduced.

That right was alleged to have been infringed by the refusal
to allow various items of documentary evidence which were
essential for substantiating the action for annulment; the
defendant's essential pleas were not upheld precisely because
they were not supported or evidenced. Likewise, The Court
of First Instance is alleged to have distorted or disregarded
the clear sense of evidence essential for underpinning the
application for annulment.

the EC Treaty on the ground that

2. The second plea concerns the infringement of Article 253
of
the statement of
reasons on which the contested Decision was based was, in
regard to essential aspects, inadequate. In particular, in rela-
tion to the essential question raised in the complaints which
gave rise to the aforementioned decision concerning the
lack of any contractual basis for the payments made to
Transmediterránea in order to offset personnel restructuring
costs.

3. The third plea concerns the infringement of Article 88 EC
and Article 19 of Regulation No 659/1999. It is alleged that
the actual measures contained in the Commission Decision
of 3 December 1997 adopted in relation to the contract for
the provision of maritime services entered into between
Transmediterránea and the Kingdom of Spain in 1978
entailed the abolition of the State aid scheme contained
therein and precluded its continuance in relation to the
Canary Isles lines.

4. The fourth plea concerns the infringement of Article 86(2)
of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with the infringement of
Article 173 thereof, inasmuch as the Court of First Instance
exceeded its competences in determining the application for
review and confirming the validity of the contested decision
of its own motion as an appellate court. A plea is also
raised concerning the infringement of Article 263 of the
Treaty.

In fact, in the contested judgment the Court of First Instance
confirmed the validity of certain compensation for the
performance of public service obligations; in doing so, not
only did it disregard the terms of Article 86(2) of the Treaty
and the case-law interpreting that provision (since the
requirements contained in that provision governing the
validity of
it also
exceeded its competences in basing that determination on
justificatory grounds differing from those contained in the
Decision and which, as a result of
the allegations and
evidence put forward, have been shown to be fraught with
uncertainty.

the payments were not

fulfilled) but

(1) OJ 2002, C 96, p. 4

(Case C-323/05)

(2005/C 271/28)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 August
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by Antonio Aresu and Nicola Yerrell, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. find that

the United Kingdom has failed its obligations
under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt all the laws, regula-
tions and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Directive 2001/95/EC of 3 December 2001 on general
product safety (1) and/or by failing to inform the Commis-
sion thereof;

2. condemn the United Kingdom to bear the costs of the

procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 15 January 2004.

(1) OJ L 11, 15.01.2002, p. 4

Appeal brought on 26 August 2005 by Industrias
Químicas del Vallés, SA against the judgment delivered on
28 June 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First
Instance in Case T-158/03 between Industrias Químicas
the European
del Vallés, SA and the Commission of

Communities

(Case C-326/05 P)

(2005/C 271/29)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 June 2005 by
the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities
in Case T-158/03 between Industrias
Químicas del Vallés, SA and the Commission of the European
Communtiies was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 26 August 2005 by Industrias
Químicas del Vallés, SA, represented by C. Fernández Vicién, I.
Moreno-Tapia Rivas and J. Sabater Marotias, abogados.

C 271/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.10.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that this appeal is admissible and well-founded;

2. Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28

June 2005;

3. Grant the application made at first instance seeking the
annulment of Commission Decision 2003/308/EC (1) of 2
May 2003 concerning the non-inclusion of metalaxyl
in
Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC; (2)

4. In the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First

Instance for judgment;

5. In any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs of
the present proceedings as well as those incurred as a result
of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and,
those relating to the interlocutory
where appropriate,
proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the Court of First

1. First, Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA (IQV) takes the view
Instance (CFI) has distorted the
that
evidence in the proceedings in its analysis of
the legal
opinion of the Commission concerning the consequences of
the withdrawal from the procedure for the evaluation of
metalaxyl of the only notifier which submitted a complete
dossier.

2. Secondly, IQV takes the view that the CFI has erred in law
by rejecting a plea of IQV solely on the basis of an extract
from a document to which, as the CFI itself accepts, IQV
never had access during the administrative procedure.

3. Thirdly, IQV submits that the CFI erred in law by incorrectly
interpreting and applying to the present case the precau-
tionary principle and the principle of proportionality and by
upholding the decision of
the Commission originally
contested on the grounds of public health.

4. Fourthly, IQV submits that the CFI erred in law in its inter-
pretation and application to the present case of the relevant
legal framework,
in particular the provisions of Directive
91/414/EEC and Regulation 3600/92 on the procedure for
the evaluation of active substances contained in plant
protection products. In particular, IQV believes that the CFI
(i) confused the terms ‘complete dossier’ and ‘additional
information’, (ii) wrongly determined that, where there are
multiple notifiers in respect of the same substance, each
notifier must compile a complete dossier; and (iii) made an
incorrect assessment of the role of the rapporteur Member
State in the stages following preparation of the study.

5. Fifthly, IQV submits that the CFI erred in law when it held
that the Commission did not make a manifest error of
assessment by refusing to grant an extension of the time-

limit for evaluating metalaxyl. In that regard, the CFI relied
on a false premise and stated grounds which were inconsis-
tent with the extensions granted by the Commission in the
field concerned.

6. Sixthly, IQV considers that the CFI gave contradictory and
anomalous grounds for rejecting a plea of IQV on the basis
of reasons for the decision which do not actually appear in
the contested decision.

7. Finally,

the CFI

IQV considers that

infringed provisions
governing the procedure by failing to have regard to part of
the written submissions of
for the
Hearing drawn up by the Judge-Rapporteur, without giving
any grounds for so doing in the judgment.

IQV in the Report

(1) OJ L 113 of 7.5.2003, p. 8.
(2) OJ L 230 of 19.8.1991, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-
nanzhof by decision of that court of 28 June 2005 in
Finanzamt Dinslaken v Gerold Meindl, third party: Chris-
tine Meindl-Berger

(Case C-329/05)

(2005/C 271/30)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
the Bundesfinanzhof
pean Communities by decision of
(Germany) of 28 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on
2 September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Finanzamt Dinslaken and Gerold Meindl, third party:
Christine Meindl-Berger, on the following question:

Is there an infringement of Article 43 of the Treaty establishing
the European Communities when a resident taxpayer is refused
joint assessment to income tax with his spouse who lives in
Austria, from whom he is not separated, on the ground that
that spouse obtained both more than 10 % of joint income and
more than DEM 24 000, when that
income is tax-free in
Austria?