Case C-238/07 P: Appeal brought on 14 May 2007 by Derya Beyatli against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 5 March 2007 in Case T-455/04: Derya Beyatli and Armagan Candan v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-08-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Cyprus, Türkiye, action for annulment (EU), appeal, competition (EU), linguistic discrimination, mother tongue, official language, regulations for civil servants

C 183/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.8.2007

above all,

— where, according to the information available to the first
Member State, when the driving licence was issued the
holder of the driving licence had his normal residence in
that Member State and not in the Member State which
issued the driving licence, and

— where, according to the information available to the first
Member State, it must be assumed, on the basis of objec-
tive and judicially verifiable facts, that the holder of the
right to drive would not have had any possibility of
lawfully acquiring a right to drive in the first Member
State.

2. If so, is a third party who is affected by such concentrations
of particulate matter PM10 as could be detrimental to health
entitled to have an action plan drawn up laying down the
measures to be taken in the short term to ensure strict
compliance with the nuisance limit value for particulate
matter PM10?

3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, to what extent
must the measures included in an action plan serve to reduce
the risk of exceeding the limit value and to limit the duration
of such an occurrence? Can an action plan be limited, on the
principle of ‘one step at a time’, to measures which, while
not guaranteeing compliance with the limit value, neverthe-
less contribute in the short
in
ambient air quality?

term to improvements

(1) OJ L 237, p. 1.

(1) OJ L 296, p. 55.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwal-
tungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 14 May 2007 — Dieter
Janecek v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-237/07)

(2007/C 183/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dieter Janecek

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Appeal brought on 14 May 2007 by Derya Beyatli against
the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber)
delivered on 5 March 2007 in Case T-455/04: Derya Beyatli
the European
and Armagan Candan v Commission of

Communities

(Case C-238/07 P)

(2007/C 183/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Derya Beyatli (represented by: A. Demetriades, Δικη-
γόρος)

Other party: Commission of the European Communities

Questions referred

Form of order sought

1. Is Article 7(3) of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September
1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (1)
to be interpreted as meaning that a third party whose health
is impaired is entitled to the preparation of an action plan
even if, irrespective of any action plan, he is in a position to
enforce his right to avoid any detriment to his health as a
result of the nuisance limit value for particulate matter PM10
being exceeded, by bringing an action for intervention by the
public authority?

The applicant claim that the Court should:

— set aside the contested Order

— annul the Respondent's decision of 5 May 2004

— order the Respondent to pay the costs of this appeal

4.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/19

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the contested order should be set
aside on the following grounds:

The Court of First Instance erred in law in failing to seek out
evidence by means of measures of instruction or inquiry for the
opening of the archives of not only EPSO but also of the Euro-
pean Community Representation in Cyprus and/or the Commis-
sion in general;

As a result of the CFI's omission, the Respondents did not
relevant correspondence between the European
disclose all
Community Representation in Cyprus and/or the Commission
and/or EPSO. Therefore the appellant's rights regarding a fair
hearing were infringed during the proceedings before the CFI.

Action brought on 22 May 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-246/07)

(2007/C 183/31)

Language of the case: Swedish

that Sweden was aware that

divided. Sweden acted unilaterally with regard to PFOS despite
the fact
the Community was
engaged in drafting legislation which included that substance.
Sweden's action meant that the Community and Member States
could not
to the
Stockholm Convention. Thus Sweden has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under Articles 10 EC and 300(1) EC.

jointly present proposals

for additions

Action brought on 23 May 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-249/07)

(2007/C 183/32)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Konstantinidis and S.B. Noë, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Valero Jordana and C. Tufvesson, acting as Agents)

Form of order sought

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by proposing unilaterally that a substance,
PFOS (perfluorooctane sulphate), be added to Annex A to
the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants,
the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 10 EC and Article 300(1) EC;

— order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Sweden has proposed unilaterally that a substance, PFOS
(perfluorooctane sulphate), be added to Annex A to the
Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants.

The Commission claims that Sweden's unilateral proposal of
the EC's international representation was
PFOS meant

that

— Declare that, by introducing a system of prior authorisation
for oysters and mussels that come lawfully from other
to the
Member States, belong to species
Netherlands and are intended to be planted in Netherlands
coastal waters, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 and 30 EC;

indigenous

— order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Netherlands legislation prohibiting the planting, without
prior authorisation, of oysters and mussels originating from
other Member States
intra-Community trade and
market access for oysters and mussels from other Member
States.

impedes

This national rule cannot be justified.