Case T-239/07: Action brought on 9 July 2007 — Pathé Distribution v EACEA
Date: 2007-09-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU financing, action for annulment (EU), audiovisual communications policy, film industry, financial aid, termination of a contract

C 211/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.9.2007

By way of grounds the applicant submits that Article 2c of
Regulation (EC) No 375/2007 infringes the general principle of
legal certainty. The contested Regulation makes the operation of
aircraft subject to a past event, that is to say, it requires registra-
tion to have been effected before the accession of the Member
State in question to the European Union, a circumstance which
in the present case was obviously not foreseeable by the relevant
persons.

The applicant submits further that
the contested Article of
Regulation (EC) No 375/2007 infringes the principle of propor-
tionality enshrined in Article 5 EC. In that connection the appli-
cant argues that the contested provision constitutes a dispropor-
tionate restriction for persons whose aircraft were placed on a
Member State's register after accession. The Article is irrelevant
in terms of flight safety and entails unnecessary rules and condi-
tions thereby going further than is necessary to achieve the
objectives contained in the EC Treaty.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 375/2007 of 30 March 2007
amending Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 laying down imple-
menting rules for the airworthiness and environmental certification
of aircraft and related products, parts and appliances, as well as for
the certification of design and production organisations (OJ 2007
L 94, p. 3).

Action brought on 11 July 2007 — Ristic and Others v
Commission

(Case T-238/07)

(2007/C 211/79)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Ristic AG (Burgthann, Germany), Piratic Meeres-
früchte Import GmbH (Burgthann, Germany), Prime Catch
Seafood GmbH (Burgthann, Germany) and Rainbow Export
Processing SA (San José, Costa Rica)
(represented by: H.
Schmidt, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

animals from aquaculture and products of animal origin
from aquaculture may be imported from Costa Rica into the
European Union;

— hold accordingly that reason that the European Community
is obliged to compensate the applicants for the damage
caused to them as a result of the Commission's decision;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's necessary costs
in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure
of the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants contest Commission Decision 2007/362/EC (1),
because Costa Rica was deleted by that decision from the list of
third countries of which the residue monitoring plans were
approved in respect of animals from aquaculture and products
of animal origin from aquaculture.

The applicants are undertakings which are engaged in particular
in the processing and marketing of shrimps from aquaculture in
Costa Rica and Equador. They claim that the contested decision
is of both direct and individual concern to them within the
meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.

In support of their action the applicants claim in particular that
the contested decision is unlawful because it infringes the prin-
ciple of proportionality. They also complain of infringement of
the right to a fair hearing and misuse of powers by the defen-
dant.

(1) 2007/362/EC: Commission Decision of 16 May 2007 amending
Decision 2004/432/EC on the approval of residue monitoring plans
submitted by third countries in accordance with Council Directive
96/23/EC (notified under document number C(2007) 2088)
(OJ 2007 L 138, p. 18).

Action brought on 9 July 2007 — Pathé Distribution v
EACEA

(Case T-239/07)

(2007/C 211/80)

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

— declare Commission Decision of 16 May 2007 (2007/362/
EC) void pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 231 EC,
to the extent that it amended Decision 2004/432/EC to the
effect that, in the annex to that decision Costa Rica is no
longer listed with its ISO-2-Code in the first column,
its
name in the second column and an ‘X’ in the eighth column
to indicate that in accordance with Decision 2004/432/EC

Parties

Applicant: Pathé Distribution (Paris, France) (represented by: P.
Deprez, lawyer)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency
(EACEA)

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/43

Form of order sought

Action brought on 4 July 2007 — Heineken Nederland and
Heineken v Commission

— Declare

the

that

2006-
09120304D1021001FD1507 has not been validly termi-
nated by the Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive
Agency and remains in force;

contract

No

— Order

the Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive
Agency to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 9 737
remaining payable to it under the contract.

Pleas in law and main arguments

it

requests that

the
By the present action based on an arbitration clause,
applicant
the defendant be ordered to make
payment of a sum equivalent to the balance remaining payable
to
2006-
09120304D1021001FD1507 in relation to Community finan-
cial support of a project for videographic distribution of a film
within the ‘MEDIA Plus’ programme adopted by Council Deci-
sion 2002/821/EC (1).

implementation

contract

No

of

in

The contract was signed by the parties on 27 June 2006 and an
advance was paid by the defendant to the applicant as provided
for by the contract. On 8 May 2007, the defendant sent a letter
to the applicant purporting to terminate the contract on the
ground that the real total costs were lower than the project's
provisional budget and that no written explanation had been
provided in the submitted financial report on the project, and
requesting repayment of the sum paid as an advance. The appli-
cant considers, however, that, as provided for in the contract,
the defendant's contribution to the project was to be as high as
50 % of the real costs of videographic distribution, and accord-
ingly requests payment of a sum still due in addition to the sum
paid in advance.

In support of its action, the applicant claims that termination of
the contract by the defendant is irregular and unfounded, since
it has disregarded the terms of the contract as to the procedure
for termination, and in particular, it has not allowed the appli-
cant any period in which to respond on the implementation of
the contract. According to the applicant, the Court should rule
that the contract remains in force.

Further, the applicant disputes the grounds of termination of
the contract which are relied on by the defendant, namely
failure to perform its contractual obligations.

(1) 2000/821/EC: Council Decision of 20 December 2000 on the imple-
mentation of a programme to encourage the development, distribu-
tion and promotion of European audiovisual works (MEDIA Plus —
Development, Distribution and Promotion) (2001-2005), OJ L 336,
p. 82.

(Case T-240/07)

(2007/C 211/81)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Heineken Nederland BV and Heineken NV (repre-
sented by: T. Ottervanger and M.A. de Jong, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— set aside in whole or in part the decision addressed to, inter

alia, the applicants;

— set aside or reduce the fine imposed on the applicants;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of

the present

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are challenging the Commission decision of
18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC
(Case COMP/B-2/37.766 — Netherlands beer market), by which
a fine was imposed on the applicants.

In support of their action, the applicants first put forward a
number of procedural heads of complaint. First, they allege
infringement of the principle of sound administration during
the investigation and breach of Article 27 of Regulation
the Commission refused access to the
No 1/2003 in that
the
the other undertakings. Second,
defence submissions of
applicants allege that the Commission failed to carry out a
careful and impartial investigation. Third, the applicants submit
that the conduct of the Competition Commissioner amounted
to an infringement of the principle of the presumption of inno-
cence. Fourth, they claim that the Commission failed to comply
with the requirement that proceedings be concluded within a
reasonable period of time, as a result of which the applicants
argue that their rights of defence were breached.

The applicants further allege a breach of Article 81 EC. In that
connection, the applicants first submit that there was a defective
adduction of evidence, disregard for the presumption of inno-
cence and infringement of the principle that reasons must be
given. Second, the applicants dispute the contention that there
were agreements and/or concerted practices in this case. Third,
the applicants argue that the Commission erred in its calculation
of the duration of the alleged breach.