Case C-418/06 P: Appeal brought on 13 October 2006 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 25 July 2006 in Case T-221/04 Belgium v Commission
Date: 2006-12-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, EAGGF Guarantee Section, European Commission, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), aid to agriculture, appeal, area of holding, crop production

C 294/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.12.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of the directive into
national law expired on 23 March 2005.

The Commission considers that by basing the regulation solely
on article 175(1) EC and deleting article 133 EC as its second
legal basis, the European Parliament and the Council have acted
in infringement of the Treaty. In accordance with article 231(1)
EC, the annulment of the Regulation constitutes the appro-
priate remedy for this infringement.

(1) OJ L 80. p. 35.

(1) OJ L 190, p.1

Action brought on 9 October 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v European Parliament, Council of
the European Union

(Case C-411/06)

(2006/C 294/59)

Language of the case: English

Appeal brought on 13 October 2006 by the Kingdom of
Belgium against the judgment delivered by the Court of
First Instance (Second Chamber) on 25 July 2006 in Case
T-221/04 Belgium v Commission

(Case C-418/06 P)

(2006/C 294/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Konstantinidis, M. Huttunen, Agents)

Parties

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of
Union

the European

Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: A. Hubert,
Agent, H. Gilliams, P. de Bandt and L. Goossens, lawyers)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (1) of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on ship-
ments of waste;

— declare that the effects of the annulled regulation are defini-
tive pending the replacement of the regulation within a
reasonable period of time by an act adopted by the Euro-
pean Parliament and the Council on the correct legal basis
of Articles 175(1) and 133 EC and justified accordingly in
the recitals;

— order European Parliament, Council of the European Union

to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that its choice of a double legal basis
was decided according to the parameters established by the
case-law of the Court of Justice which are the aim and the
content of the act. It was based on the appreciation that the
regulation includes, both as regards the aims pursued and its
contents, two linked components, neither of which can be
regarded as secondary or indirect as compared with the other,
one falling within the scope of the common commercial policy
and the other within that of protection of the environment.

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

Form of order sought

— set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
Instance on 25 July 2006 in Case T-221/04 and, upholding
the action brought by the present appellant, annul Commis-
sion Decision 2004/136/EC (1) of 4 February 2004;

— in the alternative, set aside the judgment delivered by the
Court of First Instance on 25 July 2006 in Case T-221/04
and, on the basis of its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the
correction of € 9 322 809 applied by the Commission in
Decision 2004/136/EC to € 1 491 085;

— in the further alternative, set aside the judgment in Case T-
221/04 delivered by the Court of First Instance on 25 July
2006 and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings
before both the Court of Justice and the Court of First
Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant raises four grounds in support of its appeal.

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/35

is founded in it entirety on an incorrect

In its first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the
Court of First Instance distorted the facts or, at the very least,
erred in the legal appraisal of those facts and the consequences
in law to be drawn from them. According to the appellant, the
judgment
factual
assumption inasmuch as the Court of First Instance took the
view that the Belgian computerised system of graphic encoding
of agricultural areas (GIS) constitutes a measurement
tool
which is closer to reality than the area data declared by farmers
themselves, whereas the exact area of an agricultural holding
can only be determined, in a formal and indubitable manner,
either by measurement carried out by a person properly quali-
fied to do so or by photo interpretation of satellite images
taken in the framework of teledetection.

By its second ground of appeal, which consists of five limbs,
the appellant alleges breach of Articles 6(7) and 8 of Regulation
(EEC) No 3508/92 (2) and of Articles 6 and 9 of Regulation
(EEC) No 3887/92 (3) inasmuch as the Court of First Instance,
inter alia, wrongly formed the view that the appellant was
under an obligation to comply with implied rules necessary for
compliance with express rules and inasmuch as it incorrectly
considered that the control system introduced by the Belgian
authorities would not be effective by reason of the lack of
follow-up of the GIS data and because of late encoding of the
data. The appellant also submits that, in several respects, the
reasoning provided by the Court of First Instance is inadequate
and/or contradictory.

The third ground of appeal is based on an error of law allegedly
committed by the Court of First Instance in regard to the appli-
cation of the principle of proportionality, as the maximum
harm suffered by FEOGA was, in the opinion of the appellant,
significantly less than the flat-rate correction imposed.

Finally, by its fourth ground of appeal; the appellant expresses
the view that the Court of First Instance wrongly dismissed, as
being inadmissible, its request that that Court reduce the flat-
rate correction imposed on the basis of its unlimited jurisdic-
tion. The lack of an express provision conferring on the Com-
munity Courts unlimited jurisdiction does not, ipso facto, mean
that they do not have any such jurisdiction.

(1) Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding
from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the
Member States under the Guarantee Section of the EuropeanAgricul-
tural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 40, p. 31).
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 estab-
lishing an integrated administration and control system for certain
Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, 1).

(3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992
laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration
and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992
L 391, p. 36), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No
1648/95 of 6 July 1995 (OJ 1995 L 156, p. 27).

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court
of 6 September 2006 –Republic of Austria v European
Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-161/04) (1)

(2006/C 294/61)

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 106, 30.04.2004.

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the
Court of 4 August 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Landesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Zentral-
betriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols v Land Tirol

(Case C-339/05) (1)

(2006/C 294/62)

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 281, 21.11.2005.

Order of the President of the Court of 14 September 2006
— (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
cassation — Belgium) — Samotor SPRL v Belgian State

(Case C-378/05) (1)

(2006/C 294/63)

Language of the case: French

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

(1) OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.