Case C-373/07 P: Appeal brought on 3 August 2007 by Mebrom NV against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2007 in Case T-216/05: Mebrom NV v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-10-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), appeal, dangerous substance, import, import restriction, ozone, pesticide

20.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/17

4. Are subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Article 6(2) of the Sixth
VAT Directive to be interpreted in such a way that the provi-
sion covers the supply of meals by the company free of
charge to business contacts in its own canteen in connection
with meetings at the company?

5. Are subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Article 6(2) of the Sixth
VAT Directive to be interpreted in such a way that the provi-
sion covers the supply of meals by the company free of
charge to its staff in its own canteen in connection with
meetings at the company?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmo-
nization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
— Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

Appeal brought on 3 August 2007 by Mebrom NV against
the judgment of
Instance (Second
the Court of First
Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2007 in Case T-216/05:
Mebrom NV v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-373/07 P)

(2007/C 247/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Mebrom NV (represented by: K. Van Maldegem,
avocat, C. Mereu, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

the defendant was right

The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance (hereafter
‘CFI’) did not ensure that the law is observed in the interpreta-
tion and application of Community law, as it is required to do
under Art. 220 EC. The contested judgment dismissed the
action for annulment on the basis of an incorrect interpretation
and application of Arts. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation
2037/2000 (1). Moreover, the judgment lacked sufficient and
consistent reasoning and it contained a series of errors of law
and distortion of facts on record. The appellant maintains that
to
the CFI erroneously held that
conclude that import quotas were no longer to be granted to
importers but that it follows from Art. 7 of the regulation that,
as of 2005, quotas were to be allocated to fumigators only
(being users as opposed to importers). The CFI ruled that Art. 7
of regulation 2037/2000 left the defendant free to choose in
this respect. Additionally, the appellant submits that the CFI
failed to assess properly whether the defendant has made accep-
table use of its alleged discretion in this regard. The CFI also
failed to acknowledge that the defendant acted ultra vires and,
furthermore, did not assess and address correctly whether the
defendant infringed the legitimate expectations of the appellant.
Finally, it is argued that the CFI also failed to adjudicate fully
and properly the Applicant's arguments as submitted in the
application.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone
layer (OJ L 244, p. 1).

Appeal brought on 3 August 2007 by Mebrom NV against
Instance (Second
the Court of First
the judgment of
Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2007 in Case T-198/05:
Mebrom NV v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-374/07 P)

(2007/C 247/22)

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Language of the case: English

— Declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;

— Set aside the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of

22 May 2007 in Case T-216/05;

— Declare the Appellant's requests in Case T-216/05 admissible

Parties

and well-founded;

— Grant the application for annulment made in first instance
in the alternative, refer the case to the Court of First

or,
Instance to rule on the merits; and

Appellant: Mebrom NV (represented by: K. Van Maldegem,
avocat, C. Mereu, avocat)

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

bear all costs and expenses of both proceedings.

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European