Case T-194/07: Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Czech Republic v Commission
Date: 2007-06-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Czechia, EU environmental policy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, greenhouse gas, reduction of gas emissions

C 199/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.8.2007

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Whelan, S. Noë and V. Bottka, Agents)

Re:

Interveners in support of the defendant: The Apollo Group (New
York, New York, United States) and Hexion Speciality Chemicals,
Inc.
by:
States))
I.M. Sinan, Barrister and J. Uphoff, Solicitor)

(Columbus, Ohio (United

(represented

Re:

Application for annulment of
the Commission Decision of
29 May 2006 declaring compatible with the common market
and the EEA Agreement the concentration concerning the acqui-
sition by Hexion Speciality Chemicals (The Apollo Group) of
full control of Akzo Nobel's Inks and Adhesive Resins business
(Case COMP/M.4071- Apollo/Akzo Nobel IAR)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

Application for interim measures seeking, principally, a stay of
execution until delivery of the judgment by the Court in Joined
Cases C-23/07 and C-24/07 of
the provision limiting to
31 March 2007 the right to use the name ‘tocai friulano’, which
name appears in the form of an explanatory note to Point 103
of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 of
9 August 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying
down certain rules
for applying Council Regulation (EC)
No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presenta-
tion and protection of certain wine sector products (OJ 2004
L 263, p. 11), and, as a subsidiary plea, a stay of execution of
that provision within the territory of the Italian Republic until
delivery of the judgment by the Court in Joined Cases C-23/07
and C-24/07, together with a prohibition of exports of produc-
tion in the Community and without prejudice to the marketing
of Hungarian-produced wine bearing the name ‘tokaj’ or homo-
nyms thereof accepted for marketing in Italy and in the Com-
munity.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Orders Sun Chemical Group BV, Siegwerk Druckfarben AG and
Flint Group Germany GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay
those of the Commission and of the interveners.

2. Costs are reserved.

(1) OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of
18 June 2007 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-431/04 R)

Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Czech Republic v
Commission

(Case T-194/07)

(2007/C 199/74)

Language of the case: Czech

(Interim relief — Application for interim measures — Regu-
lation (EC) No 1429/2004 — Common organisation of the
market in wine — System for the use of names of vine varie-
ties and their synonyms — Use limited in time — Application
devoid of purpose)

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: T. Boček, Agent)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

(2007/C 199/73)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: M. Fiorilli, Agent)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented initially by: E. Righini and L. Visaggio, and subsequently
by F. Jimeno Fernández and E. Righini, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant:
Republic of Hungary (represented initially by: P. Gottfried, and
subsequently by R. Somssich and J. Stadler, Agents)

Form of order sought

— annul the contested decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

seeks

applicant

The
annulment of Commission Decision
C(2007) 1294 final version of 26 March 2007 concerning the
national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas
emission allowances notified by the Czech Republic in accord-
ance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament
the Council. (1) According to the contested decision,
and of
certain aspects of the Czech Republic's national allocation plan
do not comply with Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC.

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/39

The applicant submits that
the Commission has infringed
Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC, as well as the principle of
legal certainty and legitimate expectation, by failing to published
laid down by
the contested decision within the time limit
Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC.

In addition, the applicant states that the Commission exceeded
its power and thus infringed Article 9(3) in conjunction with
Articles 9(1) and 11(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC in that, in the
contested decision,
it applied its own method for fixing the
maximum quantity of allowances and on basis of that method
in fact laid down, in binding form, the total quantity of allow-
ances which the Czech Republic is entitled to allocate.

Even if the Commission were entitled to use its own method for
establishing that the national allocation plan complies with the
requirements of Directive 2003/87/EC, it infringed Article 9(3)
of that directive in that (i) the method it used was neither trans-
parent nor objective and (ii) the resulting quantity of emissions
allowances does not comply with the criteria laid down in
Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC.

Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed
Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC by failing adequately to
state reasons.

(1) Directive 2003/87/EC of

the
Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse
gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending
Council Directive [96/61/EC] (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

the European Parliament and of

Action brought on 15 June 2007 — Hellenic Republic v
Commission

(Case T-214/07)

(2007/C 199/75)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by:
G. Kanellopoulos)

I. Khalkias and

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

be made in the sector of measures for the smaller Aegean
islands concerning certain agricultural products or, in any
event, that it be limited to 2 %.

— an order that the Commission of the European Commu-

nities pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action against Commission Decision No E(2007) 1663
final of 18 April 2007, published as Commission Decision
2007/243/EC (OJ 2007 L 106, p. 55), on the basis of which the
Commission excluded from Community financing certain
expenditure incurred by the Member States — in this case the
Hellenic Republic — under the Guarantee Section of the Euro-
pean Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), the
Hellenic Republic puts forward the following grounds for annul-
ment:

In the first general ground for annulment, concerning the
correction to the arable crops sectors, to the POSEI measure and
to the tomato processing sector, the applicant claims that the
defendant was in breach of an essential procedural requirement
with regard to the lack of discussion as to the assessment of the
seriousness of the infringements ascribed to Greece, the damage
suffered by the Community and the level of
the correction
in the alternative, the decision should be annulled,
imposed;
according to the applicant, because the Commission was not
empowered ratio temporis to impose corrections beyond the
24 months preceding the date of the document in which it
formulated its final position on the correction and the level of
that correction.

of

1(3)

Regulation

In the second ground of annulment, concerning the correction
in respect of arable crops, the applicant alleges misinterpretation
and misapplication of Article 4 of Regulation (EEC)
3508/95 (1),
No
Article
(EC)
No 1593/2000 (2)
and Article 58 of Regulation (EC)
No 445/2002 (3) since, on the basis of those provisions, it is
also permissible to identify land by means of cartographic mate-
rials equivalent to orthophotomaps; in the alternative, the appli-
cant alleges incorrect assessment of the factual circumstances
and insufficient reasoning given for the disputed corrections.
The applicant also alleges misinterpretation and misapplication
of Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 or, in the alterna-
tive, incorrect assessment of the factual circumstances as regards
the on-the-spot checks and the period over which they were
carried out, as well as lack of any legal basis for imposing the
correction, because the Commission misinterpreted, in the appli-
cant's view, Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 (4).
The applicant also maintains that, in particular as concerns the
correction of 10 % to durum wheat expenditure, the Commis-
sion wrongly assessed the factual circumstances and went
beyond the limits of its discretion.

— annulment of the contested decision in its entirety; in the
alternative, amendment of the contested Commission deci-
sion as specified, namely: limitation of the relevant correc-
tion to the 24 months in fact considered; no correction in
the sector of arable crops for the harvesting year 2003 or, in
any event, that the correction be limited to only 2 % of the
expenditure for durum wheat; that no financial correction

In its third ground of annulment, the applicant considers that,
with the imposition of the corrections of 5 % and 10 % in
respect of arable crops, the principle of proportionality has been
infringed since, in relation to the previous year, the improve-
ments to the system were significant, a fact that was, moreover,
noted by the Commission.