Case C-101/07 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2007 by Coop de France Bétail et Viande, formerly the Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV) against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2006 in Joined Cases T-217/03 and T-245/03 Coop de France Bétail et Viande v Commission
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for annulment (EU), appeal, beef, import restriction, minimum price, trade agreement

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/25

Question referred

Should one interpret the expression ‘shall receive benefits in
accordance with the legislation of that State as if he had last
been employed there’ contained in Article 71 of Council Regu-
lation (EEC) 1408/71 (1) of 14 June 1971, on the application of
social security schemes to employed persons, self employed
persons and members of their families moving within the Com-
munity, be interpreted as meaning that the requirement set out
within Article 215.1 of the Ley General de la Seguridad Social
of ‘having exhausted entitlement to contributory unemployment
benefit’ for the purposes of entitlement to Spanish benefits of
non-contributory unemployment allowances,
is be understood
to have been fulfilled if a German contributory unemployment
benefit has been exhausted, even if the recipient has never paid
contributions in Spain?

Appeal brought on 21 February 2007 by Coop de France
Bétail et Viande, formerly the Fédération nationale de la
coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV) against the judgment
delivered on 13 December 2006 in Joined Cases T-217/03
and T-245/03 Coop de France Bétail et Viande v Commis-
sion

(Case C-101/07 P)

(2007/C 95/46)

Language of the case: French

(1) OJ 2001 L 149, p 2.

Parties

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret
lodged on 22 February 2007 — Nordania
(Denmark)

Finans A/S and BG Factoring A/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-98/07)

(2007/C 95/45)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nordania Finans A/S and BG Factoring A/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Appellant: Coop de France Bétail et Viande, formerly Fédération
nationale de la coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV)
(repre-
sented by: M. Ponsard, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: Fédération nationale des syndicats
d'exploitants agricoles (FNSEA), Fédération nationale bovine
(FNB), Fédération nationale de producteurs de lait (FNPL), Jeunes
agriculteurs (JA), Commission of the European Communities,
French Republic

Form of order sought

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

13 December 2006 in Case T-217/03;

— declare that there is no need to impose a fine on the appli-

cant;

— alternatively reduce the amount of the fine imposed by that

judgment;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs related to the
interim and the main proceedings before the Court of First
Instance and the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

Question referred

Pleas in law and main arguments

Is the expression ‘capital goods used by the taxable person for
the purposes of his business’ contained in Article 19(2) of Sixth
Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmoni-
sation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
assessment (1), to be interpreted as covering goods which a
leasing undertaking purchases with a view both to leasing and
resale upon termination of the leasing contract?

(1) OJ L 145, p. 1.

The applicant puts forward six grounds in support of its appeal.
By its first five grounds, which seek to have the contested judg-
ment set aside, the applicant alleges, first, that the Court of First
Instance erred in failing to recognise the infringement of the
rights of defence by the Commission relating to the absence of
a reference in the statement of objections to the method used
for the calculation of the fines, second, the distortion by the
Court of First Instance of the evidence on the secret extension
of the agreement of October 2001, third, that the Court of First
Instance committed an error of
law by presuming that the
applicant adhered to the pursuit of the agreement by referring
to an overall agreement between slaughterers and breeders,
without specifically establishing the appellant's acquiescence to
its pursuit, fourth, even assuming that its acquiescence were to

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