Case T-237/07: Action brought on 27 June 2007 — CityLine Hungary Kft. v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-09-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Community certification, action for annulment (EU), aircraft, principle of proportionality, transport regulations

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/41

Action brought on 4 July 2007 — Federal Republic of
Germany v Commission

bound by the unilateral statement for the minutes of 4 May
1995.

(Case T-236/07)

(2007/C 211/77)

Language of the case: German

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the
financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No of 4 March 1991 concerning irregulari-
ties and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the
financing of the common agricultural policy and the organisation of
an information system in this field and repealing Regulation (EEC)
No 283/72 (OJ 1991 L 67, p. 11).

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M.
Lumma and J. Müller)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— declare void Commission Decision K(2007) 1901 final of
27 April 2007 on the clearance of the accounts of the
paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure
financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guar-
antee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2006 finan-
cial year, to the extent that it charges to the applicant the
amount of EUR 1 750 616,27;

Action brought on 27 June 2007 — CityLine Hungary Kft.
v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-237/07)

(2007/C 211/78)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant(s): CityLine Hungary Kft.
sented by: Á. Menyhei, lawyer)

(Vecsés, Hungary)

(repre-

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

accounts of

The applicant contests Commission Decision K(2007) 1901
final of the Commission of 27 April 2007 on the clearance of
the
the paying agencies of Member States
concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for
the 2006 financial year, and applies for annulment of that deci-
sion, to the extent that it charges to the applicant half of certain
non-recoverable export refunds.

In support of its claim, the applicant maintains, first, that the
defendant was wrong to apply the fixed 50 % charge laid down
in Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/95 (1). According
to the applicant that provision is not applicable to cases which
were notified in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC)
No 595/91 (2).

— Declare Article 2c(1) of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 375/2007 of 30 March 2007 published in the Official
Journal of the European Union of 4 April 2007 invalid, and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs, including legal fees.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the validity of Article 2c(1) of Regulation
EC No
(EC)
introduced
No 375/2007 (1). The Article deals with the continued opera-
tion of certain aircrafts registered by Member States.

1702/2003

Regulation

by

Secondly, the applicant argues that in some of the cases at issue
the defendant has infringed the principles of proper administra-
tion since it did not comply with the obligation to which it was

The applicant, which is engaged in the transport of various
goods by air, claims that the contested provisions of Regulation
(EC) No 375/2007 are of direct and individual concern to it.

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)