Case C-362/06P: Appeal brought on 4 September 2006 by Markku Sahlstedt, Juha Kankkunen, Mikko Tanner, Toini Tanner, Liisa Tanner, Eeva Jokinen, Aili Oksanen, Olli Tanner, Leena Tanner, Aila Puttonen, Risto Tanner, Tom Järvinen, Runo K. Kurko, Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK ry and MTK:n säätiö against the judgment delivered on 22 June 2006 in Case T-150/05 Markku Sahlstedt and Others v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), appeal, environmental law, protected area

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/13

(4) Article 293(2) of the LSA is contrary to Article 29(6) of
read in conjunction with Article
Directive 77/91/EEC,
29(4),
the shareholders'
fails to provide that
in that
meeting may decide to exclude the right to pre-emptive
subscription for bonds convertible into shares.

it

(1) OJ L 26 of 31. 1. 1977, p. 1

The judgment under appeal should be set aside because the
Court of First Instance made a serious misappraisal of the legiti-
mate expectations which the Institutions created in the case of
the 83-ers. As no further examination of the facts is called for,
the Court of Justice can itself dispose of the case in the appeal.
Alternatively, the case should be referred back to the Court of
First Instance.

Third plea: The Court of First Instance applied an incorrect test
for assessing the causal link between the loss suffered by Mr
Blom and the Community's unlawful conduct.

Appeal brought on 8 August 2006 by J. C. Blom against
the judgment of
Instance (Fifth
Chamber) delivered on 30 May 2006 in Case T-87/94 J.C.
Blom v Council of the European Union and Commission
of the European Communities

the Court of First

(Case C-344/06 P)

(2006/C 261/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant): J. C. Blom (represented by E. Pijnacker Hordijk and
S. C. H. Molin, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
and Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30
May in Case T-87/94, as rectified by the Order of the Court
of First Instance of 30 May 2006 (T-87/94 REC) and, ruling
anew, uphold the appellant's claim or,
in the alternative,
refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judg-
ment;

— order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs at

both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea: the Court of First Instance infringed its obligation to
state reasons by disregarding material parts of Mr Blom's plead-
ings at first instance.

Second plea: The Court wrongly failed to appreciate that the
Institutions have expressly and unconditionally recognised the
Community's liability towards producers in the position of Mr
Blom. The Court also wrongly held that he cannot derive any
right from the position adopted by the Institutions, extra-judi-
cially and before the courts, for the simple reason that he did
not accept the quantity under Regulation No 2187/93. (1)

The Court disregarded the principle of protection of legitimate
expectations by failing to infer from Mr Blom's receipt of a
specific reference quantity that,
to the
contrary, he intended to resume production after the expiry of
the non-marketing undertaking. The Court's finding that he did
not have that intention is also incomprehensible, at any rate,
insufficiently reasoned, and incorrectly applies the principle of
the protection of legitimate expectations.

to proof

subject

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 providing
for an offer of compensation to certain producers of milk and milk
products temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade (OJ
1993 L 196, p. 6).

Appeal brought on 4 September 2006 by Markku Sahl-
stedt, Juha Kankkunen, Mikko Tanner, Toini Tanner, Liisa
Tanner, Eeva Jokinen, Aili Oksanen, Olli Tanner, Leena
Tanner, Aila Puttonen, Risto Tanner, Tom Järvinen, Runo
K. Kurko, Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK
ry and MTK:n säätiö against the judgment delivered on 22
June 2006 in Case T-150/05 Markku Sahlstedt and Others
v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-362/06P)

(2006/C 261/24)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Appellants: Markku Sahlstedt, Juha Kankkunen, Mikko Tanner,
Toini Tanner, Liisa Tanner, Eeva Jokinen, Aili Oksanen, Olli
Tanner, Leena Tanner, Aila Puttonen, Risto Tanner, Tom
Järvinen, Runo K. Kurko, Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain keskus-
liitto MTK ry, MTK:n säätiö (represented by K. Marttinen, asia-
najaja)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities, Republic of Finland

C 261/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.10.2006

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22
June 2006 in Case T-150/05 dismissing the appellants'
application as inadmissible;

— declare the application in Case T-150/05 admissible;

— give judgment in the case and grant the principal and alter-
native forms of order sought by the parties who were appli-
cants before the Court of First Instance and thus allow the
application in Case T-150/05 in full;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to
pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court
of First Instance and in the proceedings now before the
Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Instance considered that

The Court of First
the contested
Commission Decision 2005/101/EC (1) was not of direct
concern to the applicants within the meaning of Article 230
EC. The decision dismissing the application as inadmissible is
wrong in law and should be set aside on the following
grounds:

were imposed in the form of the prohibition on allowing
land to deteriorate and the requirement to submit to an
assessment. It was a decision by which the Natura 2000
status of the sites was definitively decided.

(1) OJ 2005 L 40, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.

Appeal brought on 6 September 2006 by Comunidad
Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana against
the order made on 5 July 2006 by the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-357/05 Comunidad
Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-363/06 P)

(2006/C 261/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

1. Direct effects on legal position

Parties

The Court misinterpreted Article 6 of Council Directive
92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2) by considering that
the Commission's Decision had no direct legal effects on the
applicants. The appellants consider, however, that the deci-
sion directly affects their legal position because it

(i) definitively determines a site's conservation area status;

(ii) prohibits landowners from allowing their property to

deteriorate;

(iii) lays down a requirement

that plans or projects be

assessed.

Appellant: Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad
Valenciana (represented by: J. V. Sánchez-Tarazaga Marcelino,
letrado, and C. Fernández Vicién and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas,
abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

Form of order sought

— declare that the present case is admissible and well founded;

2. Automatic direct effects

— set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 5 July

The Court misinterpreted Article 6 by taking the view that
for the Commission's decision to have legal effects measures
of the Member State are required, and these are discre-
tionary. In the appellants' view, parts of the Commission's
decision have legal effects, however, for instance the prohi-
bition on allowing property to deteriorate and the require-
ment that plans and projects be assessed, which take effect
automatically without implementing measures on the part
of the Member State.

3. Lack of effective legal remedies

2006;

— refer the case back to the Court of First Instance so that the
application originally filed is declared admissible and the
proceedings continued;

— order the Commission to pay all of the costs of the present

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In European Community law the principle of audi alteram
partem applies in administrative and judicial proceedings.
Under that principle the parties must in practice have a
right of appeal or other effective legal remedy against deci-
sions. If the right to bring an action is denied to them, the
appellants at no stage in these proceedings have a possibility
of challenging the authorities' decision by which their land
was included in the Natura 2000 network and restrictions

This appeal is based on the following pleas in law:

The Court of First Instance erred in law: it infringed the EC
Treaty, in particular Article 19 of the Protocol annexed to the
Treaty establishing the European Community on the Statute of
the Court of Justice (which, in accordance with Article 311 EC,
forms an integral part thereof) which lays down the criteria
governing the legal representation of the parties before the
Community courts.