Case C-107/07 P: 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
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), State aid, access to EU information, action for annulment (EU), appeal, provision of documents

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

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/27

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of

11 December 2006 in Case T-290/05 (1);

the appellant clearly explained,
published in a magazine,
however, that the main issue was not settled by the respondent's
confirmation. In support of his application, the appellant argued
that the magazine in question is not an organ for the publica-
tion of the respondent's public notices.

— annul the Commission decision of 27 May 2005.

For all these reasons, the impugned judgment of the Court of
First Instance must be set aside.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) OJ 2006 C 331, p. 42.

The appellant justifies his appeal against the above judgment as
follows.

The Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the application
as inadmissible inasmuch as by that application the respondent
should be required by the Court to grant access to certain docu-
ments. According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice,
the Court does not have such authority to give instructions. In
it was observed in the contested decision that the
addition,
present appellant's amended application could not be construed
as meaning that that application implicitly sought annulment of
the present respondent's contested decision.
It could not be
deduced from this that: the appellant, by his amended applica-
tion, sought not only implicitly, but also explicitly, annulment
of the respondent's contested decision. The appellant's amended
application is admissible inasmuch as it seeks annulment of the
Commission's decision. The finding that the application was
inadmissible in its entirety is thus unlawful.

The Court of First Instance observes in its contested judgment
that
the application contained ‘accusations against German
public-law broadcasting bodies and other state bodies.’ The
description as such in the observations discredits the appellant's
statement of
facts in an unacceptable way. The derogatory
description of the application as ‘accusations’ shows that the
Court failed to examine the extraordinary weight of the allega-
tions and the related infringement of Community law as rele-
vant factors in relation to justifying the application. The Court
of First Instance thus disregarded the right to a fair hearing. The
way in which the restrained arguments of the appellant were
assessed even gives grounds for suspecting bias and for doubts
as to a fair hearing.

The impugned judgment contradicts the principles of the Treaty
on European Union and the Treaty on establishing the European
Community. It disregarded the declared will of the Community,
to develop and strengthen democracy and the rule of law as
well as human rights and fundamental freedoms. The judgment
of the Court fails to recognise the significance of the principle
of openness in the framework of the Community's belief in and
declared will for democracy. The Court failed to examine the
question as to whether the defendant's decision was compatible
with the goals of the Community. The impugned judgment thus
infringes applicable Community law.

It is not the case that the part of the claim put forward that
contained access to the contested Commission document was
fully settled. While the defendant confirmed to the Court of
letter
First

Instance the authenticity of

the Commission's

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Prud'homie de
lodged on 20.2.2007 —
pêche de Martigues (France)

Jonathan Pilato v Jean-Claude Bourgault

(Case C-109/07)

(2007/C 95/50)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Prud'homie de pêche de Martigues (France)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jonathan Pilato

Defendant: Jean-Claude Bourgault

Questions referred

1. Should Article 11a of Council Regulation (EC) No 894/97 (1)
of 29 April 1997, as amended by Council Regulation (EC)
No 1239/98 (2) of 8 June 1998, be interpreted as also prohi-
biting nets which do not drift or hardly drift by reason of a
floating anchor to which they are attached?

2. Is Article 11a(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 894/
97, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of
8 June 1998, valid to the extent to which:

a) it appears to pursue a strictly environmental objective,
is founded is

although the legal basis on which it
Article 43 of the EC Treaty (now Article 37 EC);

b) it does not define a drift-net and therefore does not

clearly define the scope of that term;

c) it is not clearly reasoned;