Case C-2/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 4 January 2007 — Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux and Others v Region of Wallonia, Société de développement et de promotion de l'aéroport de Liège-Bierset SA, T.N.T. Express Worldwide (Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale des voies aériennes — Belgocontrol, État belge, Cargo Airlines Ltd
Date: 2007-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, airport, environmental impact, impact study, interpretation of the law, project evaluation, public-private partnership, transport infrastructure

C 69/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.3.2007

Form of order sought

between Indian imports and the alleged injury to the Com-
munity CD-R industry.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) JO L 138, p. 1.

— set aside the Court of First Instance's judgment of 4 October
2006 in case T-300/03, Moser Baer India Limited v Council
of the European Union;

— confirm the same form of order requested at the proceed-
ings before the Court of First Instance in Case T-300/03,
Moser Baer India Limited v Council of the European Union,
namely to annul Council Regulation (EC) 960/2003 (1) in so
far as it applies to the Appellant,

— order the Council

this
appeal as well as the Appellant's costs in case T-300/03,
Moser Baer India Limited v Council of the European Union.

to bear the Appellant's costs of

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassa-
tion (Belgium) lodged on 4 January 2007 — Paul Abraham,
Eugène Dehalleux and Others v Region of Wallonia,
Société de développement et de promotion de l'aéroport
de Liège-Bierset SA, T.N.T. Express Worldwide (Euro Hub)
SA, Société nationale des voies aériennes — Belgocontrol,
État belge, Cargo Airlines Ltd

(Case C-2/07)

(2007/C 69/07)

Language of the case: French

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant relies upon three grounds of appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance.

Referring court

Cour de cassation

The first ground of appeal relates to the infringement by the
Court of First Instance of the principles of coherence and dili-
gent investigation in determining the amount of the countervail-
able duty that was assessed against imports of CD-Rs into the
European Community under the Contested Regulation. Under
this ground of appeal, the Appellant maintains that the Court of
First Instance did not abide by the above-mentioned principles
when confirming that the Community Institutions acted legally
when classifying all the Appellant's assets in the category of
assets that benefited for countervailable subsidy. This resulted in
a failure of the Court of First Instance to abide by the above-
mentioned principles of Community law.

The second ground of appeal consists of two limbs namely that:
(i) the Court of First Instance failed to appraise correctly the
conflicting evidence on the record and in the Contested Regu-
lation of a key element in the determination of injury, namely
the price of Indian CD-R imports, over the course of the Injury
Investigation Period; and (ii) that the Court of First Instance's
endorsement of
in the Contested Regulation
relating to stock levels of the Community CD-R industry consti-
tuted a factor supporting a finding of injury in the Contested
Regulation.

the findings

The third ground of appeal relates to the Court of First Instan-
ce's failure to take proper account of the terms of Article 8(7)
of
the Community's Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation and its
failure to take into account the impact of factors unrelated to
imports of CD-Rs from India when examining the causal link

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux and Others

Defendants: Region of Wallonia, Société de développement et de
promotion de l'aéroport de Liège-Bierset SA, T.N.T. Express
Worldwide (Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale des voies aériennes
— Belgocontrol, État belge, Cargo Airlines Ltd

Questions referred

‘1. Does an agreement between public authorities and a private
undertaking, signed with a view to having that undertaking
become operational at an airport with a runway more than
2 100 metres in length, featuring an exact description of
work on the infrastructure to be carried out in relation to
the adaptation of the runway, without its being extended,
and the construction of a control tower with a view to
permitting large aircraft
to fly 24 hours per day and
365 days per year, and which provides for both nighttime
and daytime flights with effect from the date at which the
undertaking became operational at that airport constitute a
project within the meaning of Council Directive 85/337/EEC
of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment (1), as applic-
able before its amendment by Council Directive 97/11/EC of
3 March 1997 (2)?

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/5

2. Does the work to modify the infrastructure of an existing
airport with a view to adapting it to a projected increase in
the number of nighttime and daytime flights, without exten-
sion of the runway, correspond to the notion of a “project”,
for which an impact assessment is required within the terms
of Articles 1, 2 and 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of
27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment, as applic-
able before its amendment by Council Directive 97/11/EC of
3 March 1997?

3. Since a projected increase in the activity of an airport is not
directly referred to in the annexes to Directive 85/337/EEC,
must
take
the Member State in question nevertheless
account of that increase when examining the potential envir-
onmental effect of modifications made to the infrastructures
of that airport with a view to adapting it for that increase in
activity?’

(1) OJ L 175, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 73, p. 5.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2003/110/EC expired
on 5 December 2005.

(1) OJ L 321, 2003, p. 26.

Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-7/07)

(2007/C 69/09)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 11 January 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

Parties

(Case C-3/07)

(2007/C 69/08)

Language of the case: French

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: W. Wils, Agent)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Condou-Durande and R. Troosters, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of
the author of an original work of art (1) and, in any event by
failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission,
the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive;

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance
in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (1) and,
in any event by failing to communicate those provisions to
the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that directive;

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

The period for transposition of Directive 2001/84/EC expired
on 31 December 2005.

(1) OJ L 272, 2001, p. 32.