Case C-106/07: Action brought on 22 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, harbour installation, national implementing measure, vessel, waste disposal, waste management

C 95/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

be established, the Court of First Instance erred by classifying
the agreement as anti-competitive, without examining the
general legal and economic background to it and its possible
effects and, fifth, breach of the duty to state reasons and contra-
diction in the grounds of
in that
account was taken of the turnover of the appellant's members,
to ascertain
and not
whether
referred to in
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 had been exceeded.

that of
the ceiling of 10 % of

the contested judgment

the appellant

in order

turnover

itself,

By its sixth ground of appeal which seeks, in the alternative, to
obtain a reduction of the fine imposed on it, the appellant
argues that if the Court rejects the preceding grounds of appeal
it is appropriate, in any event, to reduce the amount of the fine
imposed in so far it corresponds not to 10 % but 20 % of its
turnover, which contrary to the wording of Article 15(2) of
Regulation No 17.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van
eerste
on
22 February 2007 — N.V. Lammers & Van Cleeff v
Belgische Staat

te Antwerpen

(Belgium)

lodged

aanleg

(Case C-105/07)

(2007/C 95/47)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: N.V. Lammers & Van Cleeff

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Do Articles 12, 43, 46, 48, 56 and 58 EC preclude Belgian
national statutory rules, as set out in the then applicable Arti-
cles 18(1), point 3, and 18(2), point 3, of the WIB92, whereby
interest payments were not classified as dividends and were
therefore not taxable if those interest payments were made to a
director which was a Belgian company, whereas in the same
circumstances those interest payments were classified as divi-
dends, and therefore taxable, if they were made to a director
which was a foreign company?

Action brought on 22 February 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-106/07)

(2007/C 95/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Bordes and K. Simonsson, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that, by still not having drawn up, for many French
ports, the waste reception and handling plans provided for
in Article 5 of Directive 2000/59/EC (1), or in any event by
failing to inform the Commission of their existence and
their implementation, the French Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of that direc-
tive;

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2000/59/EC expired
on 27 December 2002.

(1) Directive 2000/59/EC of

the
Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-
generated waste and cargo residues (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81).

the European Parliament and of

Appeal brought on 13 February 2007 against the judgment
of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered
on 11 December 2006 in Case T-290/05 Friedrich Weber v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-107/07 P)

(2007/C 95/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Friedrich Weber (represented by: W. Declair, Rechtsan-
walt)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European