Case T-192/07: Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise v Commission
Date: 2007-06-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for annulment (EU), complaint to the Commission, designation of origin, spirits, viticulture

C 170/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.7.2007

Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Comité de défense de la
viticulture charentaise v Commission

Action brought on 5 June 2007 — Gόrażdże Cement v
Commission

(Case T-192/07)

(2007/C 170/69)

(Case T-193/07)

(2007/C 170/70)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise
(Committee for the protection of wine-growing in the Charente)
(Sainte-Sévère, France) (represented by: C.-E. Gudin, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Applicant: Gόrażdże Cement S.A. (Chorula, Poland) (represented
by: R. Forbes, Solicitor and P. Muñiz, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul Commission decision No SG-Greffe (2007) D-20276
of 3 April 2007 addressed to the applicant's representative
and thus declare void the measure contested in this action;

— declare null and void in its entirety the Commission's deci-

sion by which it dismisses the applicant's complaint.

Pleas in law and main arguments

applicant's

concerning

By decision of 3 April 2007 the Commission decided not to
alleged
complaint
allow the
infringement of Article 81 EC by the Institut National des
Appellations d'Origine (INAO)
(National Institute of Designa-
tions of Origin) in France and the alleged infringement of Arti-
cles 81 EC and 82 EC by the major firms trading in cognac
spirit (Case COMP/38863/B2-MODEF). By this action, the appli-
cant is seeking the annulment of that decision.

the

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward three pleas.

The first plea relates to the alleged lack of competence of the
Commission member who was the signatory to the contested
measure, when he signed it ‘on behalf of the Commission’.

Second, the applicant submits that the decision did not contain
a sufficient statement of reasons in so far as the Commission
did not respond in the letter rejecting the complaint to all the
information submitted by the applicant.

By its third plea, the applicant claims that the Commission did
not give sufficiently serious consideration to the complaint.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits five grounds on the basis of which the
Commission decision of 26 March 2007 rejecting the national
allocation plan (hereinafter ‘the NAP’)
for the allocation of
greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Poland in
accordance with directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and Council (1) (hereinafter ‘the Directive’) should be inva-
lidated:

a) The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes
Article 9(3) of the Directive since a negative decision could
only have been taken within three months of the NAP notifi-
cation. The applicant further claims that it had a legitimate
expectation that any rejection decision would have been
adopted within three months, and that the NAP should be
considered as having been accepted at the expiry of this
deadline.

b) The applicant submits that the contested decision is contrary
to Articles 9(3) and 11(2) of the Directive in that it restricts
the type of amendments that can be proposed by the
Member State concerned and, in particular, since it allegedly
prevents amendments to the total amount of allowances.
However, according to the applicant, the Directive does not
limit the freedom of Member States to propose amendments.

c) According to the applicant the contested decision usurps the
Member State's competence as it leads to the Commission
effectively unilaterally deciding on the final content of the
NAP. This infringes the distribution of competences in Arti-
cles 9 and 11 of the Directive, as well as Article 10 EC on
the principle of loyal cooperation.