Case T-90/07 P: Appeal brought on 26 March 2007 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 March 2007 in Case F-92/05, Genette v Commission
Date: 2007-05-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), appeal, regulations for civil servants, transfer of pension rights

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/29

Action brought on 23 March 2007 — VIP Car Solutions v
Parliament

within the scope of the Article and, consequently, the refusal to
disclose it to the applicant is improper.

(Case T-89/07)

(2007/C 117/45)

Language of the case: French

(1) Contract notice ‘Chauffeur-driven car and minibus

service for
Members of the European Parliament during part sessions in Stras-
bourg’, OJ 2006 S 177-187988.

(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002
on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
European Communities.

Parties

Applicant: VIP Car Solutions (Hoenheim, France) (represented by
G. Welzer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

Appeal brought on 26 March 2007 by the Kingdom of
Belgium against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal
delivered on 16 March 2007 in Case F-92/05, Genette v
Commission

(Case T-90/07 P)

(2007/C 117/46)

Language of the case: French

— annul the decision of the European Parliament not to award
the contract PE/2006/06/UTD/1 — transport for Members
of the European Parliament during sessions in Strasbourg,
notified on 24 January 2007;

Parties

— annul all subsequent acts;

— order the Parliament to pay the sum of EUR 500 000 as

damages;

— order the Parliament to pay the costs of the legal proceed-

ings;

— order the Parliament to pay one-off costs amounting to

EUR 5 000

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges the decision of the European Parlia-
ment
procedure
tender
PE/2006/06/UTD/1 — transport for Members of the European
Parliament during sessions in Strasbourg (1).

rejecting

tender

its

in

In support of its action, the applicant relies, first, on an infringe-
ment of the award criteria contained in the call for tenders,
particularly, concerning price inasmuch as it claims to have
offered the lowest price and that
that criteria should have
accounted for 55 % in the award of the contract.

Moreover, the applicant asserts that the contested decision brea-
ched Article 100 of the Financial Regulation (2), under which
certain details need not be disclosed where disclosure would
harm the legitimate business interests of private undertakings or
could distort
fair competition between those undertakings.
According to the applicant, the information which it requested,
namely the price offered by the successful tenderer, does not fall

Appellant:
L. Van den Broeck, Agent)

Kingdom

of

Belgium

(represented

by

Other parties to the proceedings: Emmanuel Genette, Commission
of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

— annul

the judgment of
16 January 2007 in Case F-92/05

the Civil Service Tribunal of

Pleas in law and main arguments

By judgment of 16 January 2007 in Case F-92/05 Genette v
Commission, the Civil Service Tribunal upheld the action brought
by Mr Genette concerning the annulment of the decision of the
Commission of 25 January 2005 refusing, first, to authorise
him to withdraw his application for the transfer of his pension
rights acquired under Belgian pension schemes, brought
in
2001 and, second, to authorise him to ask for a new transfer.

In support of its appeal, the Kingdom of Belgium, as intervener
at first instance in support of the forms of order sought by the
Commission, asserts at the outset that the Civil Service Tribunal
does not have jurisdiction to assess the admissibility under
Belgian law of a application to withdraw an application for the
transfer to the Community system of pension rights acquired in
Belgian pension schemes. According to the appellant, the Civil
Service Tribunal acted ultra vires in ruling on the significance of
provisions of Belgian national law which may be applicable in
the present case.

C 117/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.5.2007

Secondly, the Kingdom of Belgium asserts that the Civil Service
Tribunal breached Community law, and in particular the provi-
sions of the Staff Regulations, in its assessment of the admissi-
bility of the introduction of a new transfer application.

TACs, which it claims is, according to the relevant scientific
advice, necessary if stocks are to increase from current levels,
where they are at serious risk of collapse and ever return to safe
biological limits:

Moreover, the Kingdom of Belgium asserts that the Civil Service
Tribunal breached Community law by its erroneous assessment
of the existence of a new fact which, according to the Kingdom
of Belgium, should not be assessed in relation to the entry into
force of the reform of the Staff Regulations, but in the light of
the provisions of Belgian law.

Finally, the Kingdom of Belgium relies on a plea in law alleging
breach of the principle of legal certainty.

Action brought on 19 march 2007 — WWF-UK v Council

(Case T-91/07)

(2007/C 117/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WWF-UK Ltd (Godalming, United Kingdom) (repre-
sented by: P. Sands, QC, J. Simor, Barrister, R. Stein, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annulment of

the TACs adopted in Council Regulation
No 41/2006 in respect of cod in the zones covered by
Council Regulation No 423/2004 establishing measures for
the recovery of cod stocks;

— that the above provisions should nevertheless continue to

have effect until replaced by a new measure;

— that the Council pay the costs of this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application is brought under Article 230 EC in respect of
the total allowable catches (‘TACs’) for 2007 adopted by the
Council under Regulation No 41/2006 (1) (‘the TACs regulation’)
for cod in zones covered by Council Regulation No 423/2004
establishing measures for the recovery of cod stocks (2)
(‘the
Cod Recovery Plan’), following the Commission's proposal of
5 December 2006 (3).

First, the applicant claims that the relevant TACs are unlawful as
they have not been set in accordance with the requirements of
the Cod Recovery Plan. Moreover, according to the applicant's
submissions, both the Council and the Commission appear to
have relied on Article 20 of the Regulation No 2371/2002 (4)
(‘the 2002 regulation’) in the adoption of the relevant TACs
rather than on the Cod Recovery Plan.

the applicant contends that

Second,
the relevant TACs are
unlawful because they do not comply with the precautionary
principle as required by the Cod Recovery Plan, Articles 5(3), 4
and 2(1) of the 2002 Regulation, the Common Fisheries Policy,
Article 174 EC and Articles 5 and 6 of the UN 1995 Agree-
ment.

Third, the applicant claims that the adoption of the relevant
TACs is irrational
in that the latter have been set at a level
where, according to all scientific evidence available, the stocks
will either remain at levels where they are at serious risk of
collapse or collapse.

Fourth, according to the applicant,
the Council misused its
powers by adopting TACs at levels intended to meet political
and economic objectives, rather than at the levels necessary to
meet the relevant objective of the Cod Recovery Plan, which is
to increase cod stocks within one year, or the shortest period of
time thereafter, above levels where they are at serious risk of
collapse.

the applicant contends

should the Cod
Furthermore,
Recovery Plan not allow for the setting of a zero TAC, the plan
in itself would be unlawful since it would not comply with the
precautionary principle.

that

In addition, the applicant claims that the Council erred in law in
not treating cod stocks in ICES (International Council for the
Exploration of
the Sea) zone VII(d) as covered by the Cod
Recovery Plan.

(1) Council Regulation No 41/2006 of 21 December 2006 fixing for
2007 fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish
stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters
and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are
required (OJ 2007 L 15, p. 1).

(2) OJ 2004 L 70, p. 8.
(3) COM (2006) 774.
(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on
the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources
under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 2002 L 358, p. 59).

In summary,
committed a manifest error of

the applicant

submits

that

the Council has
law in failing to adopt zero