Case C-535/06 P: Appeal brought on 28 December 2006 by Moser Baer India Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 4 October 2006 in Case T-300/03: Moser Baer India Ltd v The Council of the European Communities
Date: 2007-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, India, action for annulment (EU), anti-subsidy proceeding, appeal, import, originating product, record

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/3

Sir Konrad Schiemann

Ms Lindh

Mr Makarczyk

Mr Bay Larsen

Mr Kūris

Mr Ó Caoimh

Mr Juhász

Mr Levits

Mr Arestis

Mr Lõhmus

Mr Borg Barthet

Mr Klučka

Mr Ilešič

Mr Malenovský

At its meeting on 16 January 2007, the Court drew up the lists,
referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the
Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the compo-
sition of the Second and Third Chambers, as follows:

Second Chamber

Sir Konrad Schiemann

Ms Toader

Mr Makarczyk

Mr Bonichot

Mr Kūris

Mr Bay Larsen

Third Chamber

Mr Cunha Rodrigues

Mr Arabadjiev

Mr Klučka

Ms Lindh

Mr Lõhmus

Mr O'Caoimh

Mr Bay Larsen

Mr Bonichot

Ms Toader

Seventh Chamber

Mr Cunha Rodrigues

Mr Lõhmus

Mr O'Caoimh

Ms Lindh

Mr Arabadjiev

Taking of the oath by the new members of the Court of
First Instance

(2007/C 69/05)

the Member States of

Appointed Judges at the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities by decision of the Representatives of the Govern-
ments of
the European Union of 1
January 2007 (1), for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31
August 2007 and the period from 1 January 2007 to 31
August 2010, respectively, Mr Chipev and Mr Ciucă took the
oath before the Court on 12 January 2007.

(1) OJ L 1, 4.1.2007, p. 19.

Appeal brought on 28 December 2006 by Moser Baer India
Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber) delivered on 4 October 2006 in
Case T-300/03: Moser Baer India Ltd v The Council of the
European Communities

(Case C-535/06 P)

(2007/C 69/06)

Language of the case: English

At its meeting on 16 January 2007, the Court drew up the lists,
referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the
Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the compo-
sition of the Sixth and Seventh Chambers, as follows:

Parties

Sixth Chamber

Sir Konrad Schiemann

Mr Makarczyk

Appellant: Moser Baer India Ltd (represented by: K. Adamanto-
poulos, Δικηγόρος, R. MacLean and J. Branton, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union,
Commission of the European Communities, Committee of Euro-
pean CD-R and DVD+/-R Manufacturers (CECMA)

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)?