Case T-49/07: Action brought on 20 February 2007 — Fahas v Council
Date: 2007-02-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, restriction of liberty, terrorism

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/43

Re:

Application for interim measures seeking, in substance, suspen-
sion of operation of the decision of the European Parliament
dated 1 December 2006 accepting the tender submitted by
Mostra and rejecting the applicant's tender in the context of call
for tenders EP/DGINFO/WEBTV/2006/2003 and also of
the
implementation of any contract entered into with Mostra,
pending the decision of the Court in the main action.

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of
26 February 2007 — Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe v
Commission

(Case T-416/06 R)

(Application for interim measures — Application for suspen-
sion of operation — Directive 91/414/EEC — No urgency)

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for

interim measures.

2. Costs are reserved.

Parties

(2007/C 95/89)

Language of the case: English

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of
1 March 2007 — Dow AgroSciences v EFSA

Applicant: Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe SAS (Saint-Didier-
au-Mont-d'Or, France) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and
C. Mereu, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: L. Parpala and B. Doherty, Agents)

(Case T-397/06 R)

Re:

(Applications for interim measures — Application for suspen-
sion of operation of a measure — Directive 91/414/CEE —
European Food Safety Authority — Inadmissibility)

(2007/C 95/88)

Language of the case: English

Application for suspension of certain provisions of Commission
Directive 2006/132/EC of 11 December 2006 amending
Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include procymidone as an
active substance (OJ 2006 L 349, p. 22), and for certain other
interim measures.

Parties

Operative part of the order

(1) The application for interim measures is dismissed.

Applicant: Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom)
(represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

(2) The costs are reserved.

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented
by: A. Cuvillier and D. Detken, Agents,)

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of the decision of the
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 28 July 2006,
updated on 6 October 2006, concerning the evaluation of the
active substance haloxyfop-R for the purposes of Council Direc-
tive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of
plant-protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1),
and for the grant of other interim measures

Action brought on 20 February 2007 — Fahas v Council

(Case T-49/07)

(2007/C 95/90)

Language of the case: German

Operative part of the order

1. Rejects the application for interim measures;

Parties

2. Reserves the costs.

Applicant: Sofiane Fahas (Milkendorf, Germany) (represented by:
F. Zillmer, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

C 95/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

Form of order sought

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— Annul Decision 2002/848/EC of 28 October 2002 imple-
menting Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 and
repealing Decision 2002/460/EC, by which the Council
drew up an updated list of persons, groups and entities to
which that regulation applies, and all decisions adopted in
the meantime by the Council of the European Union in the
including Decision 2006/1008/EC of 21
meantime
in so far as
December 2006, which is currently in force,
they concern the applicant;

— declare all aforementioned decisions up to and including
Decision 2006/1008/EC of 21 December 2006 inapplicable
to the applicant;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the appli-
cant damages for the harm suffered, the amount to be deter-
mined at the Court's discretion, but at least EUR 2 000;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

its

application,

By
challenge Decision
2006/1008/EC (1) and all previous decisions since Decision
2002/848/EC (2),
in so far as he is expressly listed in the
contested legislation.

applicant

the

In support of his claim, the applicant alleges infringement of his
right to a fair hearing and his right to effective legal protection.
In addition, Decision 2006/1008/EC is unfounded and thus is
in breach of Article 253 EC.

(1) Council Decision 2006/1008/EC of 21 December 2006 imple-
menting Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific
restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with
a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2006 L 379, p. 123).

(2) Council Decision 2002/848/EC of 28 October 2002 implementing
Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive
measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to
combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ 2002
L 295, p. 12).

Form of order sought

— Annulment of Commission Decision of 14 December 2006
excluding from Community financing certain expenditure
incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section
of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(EAGGF) (1),
in so far as it applies to Portugal a financial
correction of 5 % in aid for arable crops, in respect of the
additional payment
in the sum of
EUR 3 945 827,00, under the system created by Council
Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999 estab-
lishing a support system for producers of certain arable
crops (2);

for durum wheat,

— as an ancillary matter, annulment of the decision in so far as
it excludes from Community financing expenditure incurred
by the Portuguese Republic before 16 December 2003, in
the sum of EUR 3 231 650,20;

— an order that the Commission of the European Commu-

nities should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on the following grounds:

— Infringement of the fourth subparagraph of Article 7(4)(a) of
Regulation No 1258/99 (3): in this connection the applicant
alleges breach of the duty to state reasons and disregard of
essential procedural requirements;

— with regard to the late performance of inspections on the
spot in the marketing years 2002 and 2003 laid to its
charge by the contested decision,
the applicant alleges
breach of the principle of subsidiarity, breach of the prin-
ciple of equality of Member States, breach of the principle of
proportionality and error as to the factual grounds;

Action brought on 23 February 2007 — Portuguese
Republic v Commission

— the applicant also argues that the EAGGF has sustained no

financial loss;

(Case T-50/07)

(2007/C 95/91)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (Lisbon, Portugal)
(represented
by: Inez Fernandes and P. Barros da Costa, acting as Agents, and
M. Figueiredo, lawyer)

— furthermore,

the applicant challenges

the Commission's
finding as to the allegedly insufficient number of site visits
regarding durum wheat in 2002.

(1) OJ 2006 L 355, p. 96.
(2) OJ 1999 L 160, p. 1.
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the
financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p.
103).