Case C-241/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 21 May 2007 — JK Otsa Talu OÜ v Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)
Date: 2007-07-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAGGF, aid recipient, aid to agriculture, environmental protection, interpretation of the law, rural development, sustainable development

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/13

Question referred

national provisions within the meaning of Article 10(2)
of Directive 2006/116?

Is Article 20 of Directive 2003/54/EC (1) of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common
rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Direc-
tive 96/92/EC to be interpreted as obliging Member States to
establish legal rules whereby any third party has the right, at his
discretion, provided that the electricity system has ‘the necessary
capacity’,
to choose the system — electricity transmission
system or electricity distribution system — to which he wishes
to be connected, and the operator of that system has an obliga-
tion to grant access to the network?

(b) Does

the term of protection granted pursuant

to
Article 10(2) of Directive 2006/116 also apply to
subject-matter that, on the date specified in Article 10(1)
of that directive, fulfilled the criteria set out in Council
Directive 92/100/EEC (2) of 19 November 1992 on
rental right and lending right and on certain rights
related to copyright in the field of intellectual property,
but whose rightholder is not a Community national?

(1) OJ L 176, p. 37.

(1) OJ L 372, p. 12.
(2) OJ L 346, p. 61.

for

Reference
from the
preliminary
Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 16 May 2007 —
(Germany) GmbH v Falcon
Sony Music Entertainment

ruling

a

Neue Medien Vertrieb GmbH

(Case C-240/07)

(2007/C 170/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sony Music Entertainment (Germany) GmbH

Respondent: Falcon Neue Medien Vertrieb GmbH

Questions referred

1. Does

term of protection granted

the European Parliament and of

by Directive
the
2006/116/EC (1) of
the
Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of
copyright and certain related rights (Directive 2006/116)
under the conditions set out in Article 10(2) thereof apply
also in the case of subject-matter that has not at any time
been protected in the Member State in which protection is
sought?

2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus
(Estonia) lodged on 21 May 2007 — JK Otsa Talu OÜ v
Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)

(Case C-241/07)

(2007/C 170/24)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JK Otsa Talu OÜ

Defendant: Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet
(PRIA)

Questions referred

1.

‘Is it compatible with the objective of agri-environmental
support laid down in Articles 22 to 24 of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 1257/1999 (1) of 17 May 1999 on support
for
from the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and
repealing certain Regulations:

rural development

(a) to give continued support only to applicants for whom,
within the framework of
that programme, a decision
awarding agri-environmental support has already been
made in the previous budgetary year, and who have
entered into an environmental commitment,

(a) Do national provisions governing the protection of right-
holders who are not Community nationals constitute

or

C 170/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.7.2007

(b) to support in each budgetary year also new applicants
who are prepared to give a commitment of environment-
friendly production and accordingly organise
their
production to comply with the requirements?

and, consequently, grant the forms of order sought by the
appellant contained in its application for annulment and, if
appropriate, refer the matter back to the Court of First
Instance to rule on the merits of that application;

2. If the answer to Question 1 is variant (b), does Article 24(1)
in conjunction with Article 37(4) and Article 39 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 authorise a Member State, if
in the context of the programme it becomes clear that there
are no longer sufficient budgetary means for granting first-
time support:

(a) to amend the original rules and requirements for applica-
tions for and grants of agri-environmental support and
determine that support may be applied for only if the
applicant has been the subject of a decision granting
support in the previous budgetary year and an environ-
ment-friendly production obligation is therefore in force
for him,

or

(b) to reduce proportionately the support of all applicants
agri-environmental

requirements

the

for

meeting
support?’

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.

Appeal brought on 18 May 2007 by the Kingdom of
Belgium against the order of the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber) of 15 March 2007 in Case T-5/07
Belgium v Commission

(Case C-242/07 P)

(2007/C 170/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den
Broeck, acting as Agent, J.-P. Buyle and C. Steyaert, avocats)

The other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

Forms of order sought

— annul the contested order;

— declare that the action for annulment brought by the appel-
lant against the European Commission (T-5/07) is admissible

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal and of

the application before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward four grounds in support of
appeal.

its

the appellant claims that

By its first ground of appeal
the
contested order is vitiated by a failure to state adequate reasons
in so far as, infringing Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court of First Instance, the order cites the case-law relating
to unforeseeable circumstances and excusable error without
stating the reasons why the circumstances put forward by the
appellant do not constitute such unforeseeable circumstances or
are not the source of such an excusable error.

By its second ground of appeal the appellant further claims that
the Court of First Instance erred in law in the application of the
conditions for the existence of an excusable error, in deciding
that issues linked to the functioning of the appellant's services
cannot, of themselves, render the error committed excusable.
Community case-law, relating to excusable error states that it
covers exceptional circumstances, without any restrictions as to
the context in which those circumstances occur.

By its third ground of appeal the appellant claims that the Court
of First Instance erred in law, or, at the very least, failed to
comply with its duty to give reasons, by failing to examine one
of the arguments that had been raised before it, based on the
rigour which the appellant would be
excessive procedural
subject to if its appeal was rejected as inadmissible even though,
in the present action, it has shown great care and, in particular,
sent the application by fax well before the expiry of the time-
limit for bringing an appeal.

By its fourth ground of appeal the appellant claims that the
rejection of an application, on the ground that it is out of time,
when the application was sent beforehand, within the requisite
period, by fax, to the registry is contrary to the principle of
proportionality. Compliance with that principle means an appli-
cation lodged with the Registry by fax within the requisite time
period set down by the EC Treaty should not be declared inad-
missible — even when the original signed application arrives at
the Registry more than ten days later — as long as that applica-
tion was lodged within ten days following the last day on which
the lodging of the application by fax was possible.