Case C-119/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Germany), lodged on 27 February 2007 — Container Service Thorsten Sperzel GmbH v Land Hessen
Date: 2007-05-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, international transport, interpretation of the law, intra-EU transport, overheads, waste management

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.