Case C-175/07, Case C-176/07, Case C-177/07, Case C-178/07, Case C-179/07, Case C-180/07, Case C-181/07, Case C-182/07, Case C-183/07, Case C-184/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 2 April 2007 — 1. S.A. SAFBA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 2. S.A. Sucreries et Raffineries d'Erstein v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 3. SA Sucreries & Distilleries de Souppes — Ouvré Fils v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 4. SA Sucrerie de Bourgogne v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 5. Sucrerie Bourdon v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 6. S.A. des Sucreries du Marquenterre v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 7. Cristal Union v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 8. S.A. Lesaffre Frères v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 9. Sociéte Vermendoise Industries v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 10. S.A. Sucreries de Toury et Usines annexes v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers
Date: 2007-05-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to agriculture, common organisation of markets, interpretation of the law, production quota, regulation of agricultural production, sugar

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/19

Action brought on 29 March 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v
Council of the European Union

(Case C-167/07)

(2007/C 117/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad,
agent)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 41/2007 (1) of
21 December 2006 fixing for 2007 the fishing opportu-
nities 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, to the extent that specific quotas are not allocated
to the Spanish fleet in the Community waters of the North
Sea and

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination:

The Kingdom of Spain believes that, to the extent that the
contested regulation does not allocate to Spain quotas in the
Community waters of the North Sea, there is an infringement of
the principle of non-discrimination, given that, on the expiry of
the transitional period stipulated in the Act of Accession, all
other Member States are recognised to have the right of access
to those waters and their resources, whereas the Kingdom of
Spain is recognised to have the right of access only to those
waters.

(2) Misinterpretation of the Act of Accession of Spain:

The Act of Accession in laying down rules concerning the tran-
sitional period for Spain in relation to fisheries does not distin-
guish between access to waters and access to resources. More-
over, the provisions of the Act of Accession should be inter-
preted to accord with its context and purposes.

(3) Infringement of Article 20(2) of Regulation 2371/2002 (2):

The provision is infringed in that no quotas are allocated to
Spain in respect of new fishing opportunities established and
distributed for the first time after the expiry of the transitional
period specified in the Act of Accession.

(1) OJ 2007 L 15, p. 1.
(2) 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).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
Grande instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 2 April
2007 — 1. S.A. SAFBA v Directeur général des douanes et
droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et
droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 2. S.A. Sucreries et
Raffineries d'Erstein v Directeur général des douanes et
droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et
droits
indirects de Gennevilliers, 3. SA Sucreries &
Distilleries de Souppes — Ouvré Fils v Directeur général
des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des
douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 4. SA Sucrerie
de Bourgogne v Directeur général des douanes et droits
indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits
indirects de Gennevilliers, 5. Sucrerie Bourdon v Directeur
général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur prin-
cipal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers,
6. S.A. des Sucreries du Marquenterre v Directeur général
des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des
douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 7. Cristal
Union v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects
and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de
Gennevilliers, 8. S.A. Lesaffre Frères v Directeur général
des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des
douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 9. Sociéte
Vermendoise Industries v Directeur général des douanes et
droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et
droits indirects de Gennevilliers, 10. S.A. Sucreries de
Toury et Usines annexes v Directeur général des douanes
et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et
droits indirects de Gennevilliers

(Case C-175/07)
(Case C-176/07)
(Case C-177/07)
(Case C-178/07)
(Case C-179/07)
(Case C-180/07)
(Case C-181/07)
(Case C-182/07)
(Case C-183/07)
(Case C-184/07)

(2007/C 117/32)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de Grande instance de Nanterre

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: S.A. SAFBA (C-175/07), S.A. Sucreries et Raffineries
d'Erstein (C-176/07), SA Sucreries & Distilleries de Souppes —
Ouvré Fils (C-177/07), SA Sucrerie de Bourgogne (C-178/07),
Sucrerie Bourdon (C-179/07), S.A. des Sucreries du Marquen-
terre (C-180/07), Cristal Union (C-181/07), S.A. Lesaffre Frères
(C-182/07),
(C-183/07),
Sociéte Vermendoise
S.A. Sucreries de Toury et Usines annexes (C-184/07)

Industries

Defendants: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and
Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevil-
liers

C 117/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.5.2007

Questions referred

1. Is Commission Regulation No 314/2002 (1) invalid in the
light of Article 15 of Council Regulation No 1260/2001 on
the markets in the sugar
the common organisation of
sector (2) and in the light of the principles of proportionality
and non-discrimination,
for
in that
calculation of the contribution on production, for the exclu-
sion from the financing requirements of those quantities of
sugar contained in processed products, which are exported
without benefit of an export refund?

it does not provide,

2. In the event that the answer to that question is in the nega-

tive:

Is Regulation No 1686/2005 (3)
invalid in the light of
Commission Regulation No 314/2002 and of Article 15 of
Council Regulation No 1260/2001 and of the principle of
proportionality, in that it fixes a contribution on production
for sugar which is calculated on the basis of an ‘average loss’
per tonne exported, which does not take account of the
quantities exported without a refund, although those same
quantities are included in the total used for evaluation of the
total loss to be financed?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002
laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in
the sugar sector (OJ 2002 L 50, p. 40).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the
common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001
L 178, p. 1).

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005
setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional
levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year (OJ 2005
L 271, p. 12).

Action brought on 3 April 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-192/07)

(2007/C 117/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Condou-Durande and W. Bogensberger, Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

— declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to implement Council
Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right
to family reunification (1), or, by not informing the Commis-
sion of such provisions, the Federal Republic of Germany
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

period

The
prescribed
2003/86/EC expired on 3 October 2005.

for

transposition

of Directive

(1) OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.

Action brought on 12 April 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-199/07)

(2007/C 117/34)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Patakia and D. Kukovec)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that, by introducing de facto an additional criterion
for automatic exclusion beyond those which are expressly
in Article 31(2) of Council Directive
provided for
93/38/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procure-
ment procedures of entities operating in the water, energy,
transport and telecommunications sectors, to the detriment
of foreign consultancy firms, and by failing to distinguish in
the contest in question between qualitative selection criteria
and award criteria, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
obligations flowing from Community legislation on public
procurement, more specifically Articles 4(2), 31(1) and (2)
and 34(1)(a) of Directive 93/38/EEC, as interpreted by the
Court of Justice of the European Communities, the principle
of mutual recognition of
formal qualifications which is
governed by Community law on public procurement, and
Articles 12 and 49 of the Treaty;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.