Case T-32/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Slovakia v Commission
Date: 2007-03-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU environmental policy, European Commission, Slovakia, action for annulment (EU), greenhouse gas, reduction of gas emissions, tradeable emission permit

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/29

In addition to the action for annulment, the applicants have also
introduced an action for compensation on the basis of Articles
235 and 288(2) EC in order to repair the damage allegedly
suffered by them as a result of the contested restrictions.

(1) Commission Directive 2006/133/EC amending Council Directive
91/414/EEC to include flusilazole as active substance; OJ L 349,
2006, p. 27.

(2) Council Directive 91/414/EEC, of 15 July 1991, concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market; OJ L 230, 1991,
p. 1.

Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Slovakia v Commis-
sion

(Case T-32/07)

(2007/C 69/58)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba, Agent)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the contested decision;

— in the event that the Court of First Instance does not agree
with the opinion set out at paragraph 95 of the application,
preserve, in accordance with Article 231(2) EC, those effects
of the contested decision on the basis of which the applicant
decides the total quantity of allowances and their allocation
to individual businessmen on their territory;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

contests

applicant

the Commission's Decision

The
of
29 November 2006, which concerns the national allocation
plan for the allocation of emissions allowances for greenhouse
gases notified by the Slovak Republic in accordance with Direc-
tive 2003/87/EC of
the
Council (1). According to the contested decision, certain aspects
of the Slovak national allocation plan are incompatible with
Annex III to Directive No 2003/87/EC.

the European Parliament and of

The applicant submits in support of its action that the Commis-
sion infringed Article 9(3) in conjunction with Article 9(1) and
Article 11(2) of Directive No 2003/87/EC and the principle of
legitimate expectations in that, irrespective of the national allo-
cation plan, in the contested decision it applied its own method
of setting the maximum total annual average amount of emis-
sions allocations, appropriating to itself without authority the
task which the directive entrusted to the Member States.

Furthermore, the applicant submits that, even if the defendant
was entitled to apply its own method of setting the total quan-
tity of emissions allowances, by failing to consult the applicant
about the use of that method before the publication of the
contested decision, it breached the principle of loyal cooperation
of the institutions of the Community with the authorities of the
Member States.

Moreover, the defendant infringed Article 9(3) in conjunction
with Article 1 and Article 9(1) and criteria 1 to 4 of Annex III
to Directive 2003/87/EC and the general
legal principle of
proportionality, in that the method of setting the total amount
of emissions allocations which it applied fails to take into
account the need to increase electricity production on the appli-
cant's territory from carbon intensive sources as a result of the
obligation to close two power-plant units of the nuclear power
station at Jaslovské Bohunice.

Finally, the applicant asserts that there has been a breach of the
essential procedural requirement to state adequate reasons.

(1) Directive 2003/87/EC of

the
Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse
gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending
Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32).

the European Parliament and of

Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 January 2007 —
Verband der Internationalen Caterer in Deutschland v
Commission

(Case T-5/05) (1)

(2007/C 69/59)

Language of the case: German

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

the case be

(1) OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.