Case C-374/07 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-198/05: Mebrom NV v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-10-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, appeal, appeal to the Court (EU), dangerous substance, import, import licence, import restriction, indemnification, 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

C 247/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.10.2007

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— 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-198/05;

Infringement of the rights of defence, the right to a fair hearing
and equality of arms.

— Declare the Appellant's requests in Case T-198/05 admissible

and well-founded;

Action brought on 9 August 2007 — Italian Republic v
European Parliament

— Grant the request for damages made by the Appellant at
in the alternative, refer the case to the

first instance or,
Court of First Instance to rule on the merits; and

— Order the Defendant to bear all the costs and expenses of

both proceedings.

(Case C-393/07)

(2007/C 247/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be
set aside on the following grounds:

Parties

Distortion of facts and evidence and manifest error in the legal
assessment of facts:

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, agent,
and P. Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

— Incorrect assessment of questions and answers provided as

evidence in the form of questionnaires;

Defendant: European Parliament

— Incorrect assessment of

the questionnaires regarding the

seasonal use of methyl bromide;

Form of order sought

— Omission of sales figures presented by the appellant and an
figures

obvious
provided by the appellant and the defendant respectively;

confusion between sales

and import

— Failure to properly evaluate the sales figures;

— annul Decision P6_TA-PROV(2007)0209 of the European
Parliament of 24 May 2007, notified on 28 May 2007,
concerning the verification of Beniamino Donnici's creden-
tials;

— Contradictions and incoherence in the legal assessment of

facts;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

— Failure to assess the evidence collectively and in combined

form.

Misapplication of
damage:

the legal

requirement

to establish actual

The action is based on five grounds.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Confusion of the existence of damage with the extent of

damage;

— Confusion of the examination of the existence of damage

with the examination of a causal link;

— Requirement to show that the damage could not be made

up.

The CFI placed a disproportionate and unjustified burden of
proof on the appellant.

Inconsistency in reasoning.

Procedural error in the application of the legal standard related
to the receipt of new evidence in the course of proceedings.

By the first ground, the Italian Government alleges infringement
of rules of
law by reference to Articles 6 (formerly 4), 8
(formerly 7), 12 (formerly 11) and 13 (formerly 12) of Decision
76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom, relating to the Act concerning the
the European Parliament by direct
election of Members of
universal suffrage of 20 September 1976 (‘the 1976 Act’), as
amended most recently by Decision No 2002/772/EC/Euratom
of 25 June 2002 (1), and by reference to Article 6 EU. In veri-
the European Parliament
fying the credentials of Members,
cannot as a matter of fact examine the lawfulness of national
electoral procedures and must simply take cognisance of the
results lawfully declared under those procedures. The prohibi-
tion on Members who are bound by binding instructions or
under a binding mandate laid down in Article 6 of the 1976
Act has no bearing on the express decision of an unelected
candidate not to replace an elected candidate who has ceased to
hold office.