Case T-222/07 P: Appeal brought on 25 June 2007 by Petrus Kerstens against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 25 April 2007 in Case F-59/06, Kerstens v Commission
Date: 2007-08-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, appeal, professional career, promotion, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/41

Action brought on 26 June 2007 — Republic of Hungary v
Commission of the European Communities

sion did not take into account the additional information which
was supplied by the applicant and which the Commission itself
had requested during the procedure.

(Case T-221/07)

(2007/C 199/77)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Hungary (represented by:
Agent)

J. Fazekas,

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission Decision of 16 April 2007 on the
national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission
allowances notified by Hungary in accordance with Directive
2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
(C 2007 1689 final)

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the validity of Commission Decision of
16 April 2007 on the national plan for the allocation of green-
house gas emission allowances notified by Hungary in accord-
ance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council (1). According to the contested decision, the
national allocation plan of Hungary does not meet certain
criteria laid down in Annex III to Directive 2003/87.

The legal basis of the action brought by the applicant is that
Directive 2003/87, and in particular Article 9(3), does not grant
to the Commission itself
the power to determine, without
taking any account of either the allocation plans developed and
notified by the Member States under Article 9(1)
and
Article 11(2) of the directive or the total quantity of emission
allowances to be allocated as established by the Member States
in those plans. the total quantity of emission allowances which
the Member States may allocate

that power

to the Commission,

In the event that the Court holds that the Directive 2003/87
does grant
the applicant
submits that the Commission made a manifest error of assess-
ment in evaluating the total quantity of emission allowances to
be allocated in accordance with the national allocation plan.
Hungary states that the Commission, in its assessment, first, did
not take into account the data and calculations presented in the
allocation plan, and thus infringed the principle of proportion-
ality, and secondly, made use of manifestly incorrect data and
inappropriate calculations which led necessarily to an incorrect
determination of the total quantity.

states

the applicant

Lastly,
the Commission did not
that
adequately comply with its obligation to state reasons, given
that, first, the Commission did not properly set out the reasons
why it did not take into consideration the allocation plan noti-
fied by Hungary and the data and calculations presented in that
plan; secondly, the Commission did not properly set out the
reasons for the suitability of the data and calculations which it
did use; and thirdly, the Commission did not state any reason
information
why it did not take into account the additional
supplied by Hungary and which the Commission itself had
requested in the course of the procedure.

(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

Appeal brought on 25 June 2007 by Petrus Kerstens
against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on
25 April 2007 in Case F-59/06, Kerstens v Commission

(Case T-222/07 P)

(2007/C 199/78)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Petrus J. F. Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented
by C. Mourato, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought by the appellant

— annul the contested order;

— refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal before

another chamber;

— award costs as of right.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant also claims that in the course of the procedure,
the Commission infringed the principle of fair cooperation, in
that, first, the Commission determined the method of calcula-
tion and the data to be used to establish the total quantity of
emission allowances without consulting the Member States
(including Hungary) on the subject, and secondly, the Commis-

In his appeal, the applicant seeks the annulment of the order of
the Civil Service Tribunal dismissing as clearly inadmissible the
action whereby he sought the annulment of, first, his career
development report for 2004 and, second, the decision of the
appointing authority rejecting his complaint against that career
development report.

C 199/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.8.2007

In support of his appeal, the applicant raises three pleas in law.

Form of order sought by the appellant

the applicant. He argues that

The first alleges infringement of Article 7(1) and (3) of Annex I
to the Statute of the Court of Justice, infringement of Article 20
irregularity adversely affecting
of that Statute, and procedural
the interests of
recourse to
Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
Instance, applicable mutatis mutandis to the procedure before the
Civil Service Tribunal, on the basis of which the contested order
was made, could not take place after two exchanges of memo-
randa and an exchange of notes of observations, that is to say
where the ordinary procedure applied. In those circumstances,
the applicant argues, the Court could not rule on inadmissibility
before the oral procedure.

The second plea, put forward in the alternative, alleges infringe-
ment of Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
First Instance and irregularity in the procedure following from
it. In the applicant's submission, the contested order could not
have been issued on the basis of
that provision without
the oral
following the procedure and in particular without
phase, given that the advocate general had not been heard and
the inadmissibility claimed was not obvious.

The third plea, raised further in the alternative, alleges infringe-
ment of the principle of the right to a fair hearing, in that the
Civil Service Tribunal impliedly held that one of the annexes to
the rejoinder constituted proof that the procedure in question
was inadmissible, before the applicant had even had a chance to
give explanations concerning that document.

— set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 April
2007 in Case F-82/05, notified to the applicant on 17 April
2007;

— grant the forms of order sought by the appellant at first
instance and, consequently, declare the application in Case
F-82/05 to be admissible and well-founded;

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service

Tribunal;

— make an order as to costs, expenses and fees and order the

Commission to pay them.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In his appeal, the appellant seeks to have set aside the order of
the Civil Service Tribunal, which rejected in part as manifestly
inadmissible and in part as manifestly unfounded the action for
annulment of the list of officials promoted under the 2004
promotion procedure, in so far as that list does not include his
name.

In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward a single
plea alleging an error of interpretation and of assessment of the
facts, which led to a procedural error and an error of law by the
Civil Service Tribunal in so far as it did not grant the applica-
tion, as set out in the reply at first instance, for a member of
the service in which the appellant was employed to be heard.

Appeal brought on 27 June 2007 by Michel Thierry against
the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on
the order of

16 April 2007 in Case F-82/05, Thierry v Commission

(Case T-223/07 P)

(2007/C 199/79)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 22 June 2007 — Imperial Chemical
Industries v OHIM (LIGHT & SPACE)

(Case T-224/07)

(2007/C 199/80)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant:
Kingdom)
V. Chandler, Solicitor)

Imperial Chemical
by:

(represented

Industries plc (London, United
and
S. Malynicz,

Barrister,

Parties

Appellant: Michel Thierry (Howald, Grand Duchy of Luxem-
bourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

— The decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 30 March

2007 in Case R 1631/2006-1 shall be annulled.

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

— The Office shall bear its own costs and pay those of the

applicant.