Case C-113/07 P: Appeal brought on 27 February 2007 by Selex Sistemi Integrati S.p.A. against the judgment delivered on 12 December 2006 in Case T-155/04 Selex Sistemi Integrati S.p.A. v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-05-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Eurocontrol, European Commission, administrative cooperation, appeal, complaint to the Commission, dominant position, intellectual property, restriction on competition

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/5

2. Does

it

correct

interpretation

follow from a

of
Article 18(1)(d) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
of 17 May 1977 that national legislation may not, in regu-
lating the ‘formalities’ referred to in that provision by means
of the reverse charge procedure governed by the combined
provisions of Articles 17(3), 23 and 25 of DPR 633/72,
make (solely to the detriment of the taxpayer) the exercise of
the right to deduct permitted by Article 17 of the Directive
conditional upon compliance with a time limit such as that
laid down in Article 19 of DPR 633/72?

(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

Action brought on 26 February 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-112/07)

(2007/C 117/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: E. De Persio and M. Condou-Durande, acting as
Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compen-
sation to crime victims (1) or, in any case, by not communi-
cating to the Commission the text of those provisions, the
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
Directive;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for
transposition of Directive
the
2004/80/EC into national law expired on 1 January 2006, with
the exception of Article 12(2) of that Directive, in respect of
which the date of compliance was 1 July 2005.

(1) OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 15.

Appeal brought on 27 February 2007 by Selex Sistemi
Integrati S.p.A.
judgment delivered on
the
12 December 2006 in Case T-155/04 Selex Sistemi Integrati
S.p.A. v Commission of the European Communities

against

(Case C-113/07 P)

(2007/C 117/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Selex Sistemi Integrati S.p.A. (represented by: F. Sciau-
done, R. Sciaudone and D. Fioretti, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities, Eurocontrol — European Organisation for the
Safety of Air Navigation

Forms of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities
of 12 December 2006 in
Case T-155/04 and refer the case back to that Court for a
ruling on the merits in the light of guidance provided by the
Court of Justice;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of

the present
proceedings, and those of the proceedings in Case T-155/04.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the forms of order sought, the appellant alleges a
number of errors in law in relation both to the procedure and
to the merits.

Errors in law in relation to the procedure

By way of errors in law on the part of the Court of First
Instance in relation to the procedure, the appellant alleges:

— infringement of Article 116(6) of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court of First Instance, in so far as that Court authorised
communication of
and
the pleadings
permitted the latter to lodge written pleadings;

to Eurocontrol

— infringement of Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court of First Instance, in so far as the facts on the basis
of which the new pleas adduced by the appellant were ruled
inadmissible were distorted;

— infringement of Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court of First Instance, in so far as the Commission's
conduct vis-à-vis the facts on the basis of which the new
pleas adduced by the appellant were ruled inadmissible was
not taken into consideration;

C 117/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.5.2007

— infringement of Article 66(1) of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court of First Instance, in so far as no order was made
in relation to the request for measures of inquiry.

Errors in law in relation to the merits

By way of errors in law in relation to the applicability of
Article 82 EC to the assistance given by Eurocontrol to national
administrations, the appellant alleges:

— distortion of the content of the contested decision;

a

for

from the
Reference
Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt
lodged on
27 February 2007 — Container Service Thorsten
Sperzel GmbH v Land Hessen

ruling
(Germany),

preliminary

(Case C-119/07)

(2007/C 117/09)

Language of the case: German

— the contradictory nature of the reasons given for not annul-
ling the contested decision despite the fact that the first plea
in law adduced by the applicant was upheld;

Referring court

— the contradictory nature of the reasoning, in so far as the
Court of First Instance substituted its own reasoning for that
used by the Commission in the contested decision;

Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt

— failure to comply with established Community case-law

concerning the limits of judicial review;

Parties to the main proceedings

— manifest error of assessment as regards the infringement of

Article 82 EC.

Applicant: Container Service Thorsten Sperzel GmbH

As regards the errors in law in relation to the applicability of
Article 82 EC to Eurocontrol's standardisation activities, the
appellant alleges:

Defendant: Land Hessen

— distortion of the content of the contested decision;

Questions referred

— adoption of a notion of economic activity incompatible with

that developed by the Community case-law;

— misinterpretation and misapplication of
case-law concerning social welfare benefits;

the Community

— breach of the obligation to provide a sufficient statement of

reasons.

As regards the errors in law in relation to the applicability of
Article 82 EC to Eurocontrol's research and development activ-
ities (in particular, the acquisition of prototypes and the regime
of intellectual property rights), the appellant alleges:

— manifest distortion of the contested decision;

— adoption of a notion of economic activity incompatible with

that developed by the Community case-law;

— misrepresentation and distortion of the evidence adduced by
the appellant concerning the economic nature of Eurocon-
trol's management of
intellectual property
the regime of
rights.

1. Is Article 33(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (1)
of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of ship-
ments of waste within, into and out of the European Com-
munity to be interpreted as meaning that, when calculating
the administrative costs of carrying out the notification and
supervision procedure, in addition to the costs of the admin-
istrative expense actually incurred for an official act, the
importance of the official act for the notifier as recipient of
the official act may also be taken into account?

Should the Court of Justice answer Question 1 in the affir-
mative:

2. Is Article 33(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 to be inter-
preted as meaning that the administrative costs of carrying
out
the notification and supervision procedure may be
regarded as ‘appropriate’ even if, in calculating the adminis-
trative costs, the item ‘Value of the importance of the official
act for the notifier’ exceeds many times (in the present case,
by a factor of twenty) the costs of the administrative expense
actually incurred?

(1) OJ L 30, p. 1.