Case T-369/07: Action brought on 26 September 2007 — Republic of Latvia v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-09-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Latvia, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, air quality, greenhouse gas, reduction of gas emissions

C 269/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.11.2007

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Declare Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 inapplicable and/or
annul Decision 2007/445 in so far as those measures relate
to the applicant;

— Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant first of all submits
that Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December
2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain
persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism
(OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70) is not applicable to him inasmuch as
there is no connection whatsoever between the common
foreign and security policy and the applicant.

Second, the applicant submits that Regulation No 2580/2001 is
not applicable to him inasmuch as he is not committing, or
attempting to commit, participating in or
facilitating the
commission of any act of terrorism.

In conclusion, the applicant contends that the contested decision
is at variance with the principle of proportionality and is inade-
quately reasoned.

Action brought on 14 September 2007 — Hamdi v Council

(Case T-363/07)

(2007/C 269/120)

Language of the case: Dutch

In support of his application, the applicant first of all submits
that Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December
2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain
persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism
(OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70) is not applicable to him inasmuch as
there is no connection whatsoever between the common
foreign and security policy and the applicant.

Second, the applicant submits that Regulation No 2580/2001 is
not applicable to him inasmuch as he is not committing, or
attempting to commit, participating in or
facilitating the
commission of any act of terrorism.

In conclusion, the applicant contends that the contested decision
is at variance with the principle of proportionality,
is inade-
quately reasoned and is contrary to his fundamental rights, in
particular the right to undisturbed enjoyment of his property
and the right to respect for his private life.

Action brought on 26 September 2007 — Republic of
Latvia v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-369/07)

(2007/C 269/121)

Language of the case: Latvian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: E. Balode-Buraka,
K. Bārdiņa)

Parties

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Applicant: Ahmed Hamdi (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented
by: J. Pauw, lawyer)

Form of order sought

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Declare Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 inapplicable and/or
annul Decision 2007/445 in so far as those measures relate
to the applicant;

— Order the Council to pay the costs of the present proceed-

ings.

— Annul Commission Decision C(2007) 3409, of 13 July
2007, on the amendment of the national plan for the alloca-
tion of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by
under Article 3(3) of Commission Decision
Latvia
C/2006/5612 (final), of 29 November 2006, on the national
plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allow-
ances notified by Latvia under European Parliament and
Council Directive 2003/87/EC (1).

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

— Adjudicate under an expedited procedure.

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/67

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that, by interpreting very widely the
rights conferred by Article 9(3) of Commission Directive
2003/87/EC,
the Commission has significantly restricted the
sovereign rights of the Republic of Latvia in relation to energy,
in particular, as regards its choice of energy sources and as
regards the supply of electrical energy, thus disregarding the
powers set out in Article 175(2)(c) of the EC Treaty.

The applicant also submits that the first criterion of Annex III
of Directive 2003/87 has been infringed in that the Commis-
sion, when adopting the decision, did not take account of the
international obligations of the Republic of Latvia under the
Kyoto Agreement.

Finally, it submits that the Decision was adopted in breach of
essential procedural requirements in that the time limit for rejec-
tion of the plan set by Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87 was
not respected.

submits

the applicant

Similarly,
the Commission has
infringed the principle of non-discrimination, in that the appli-
cation of the method of calculation devised by it to determine
the total volume of greenhouse gas emissions allowed disadvan-
tages the Member States with low total emissions.

that

(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