Case C-550/07 P: Appeal brought on 8 December 2007 by Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd, Akcros Chemicals Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 17 September 2007 in Case T-253/03: Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ld and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), judicial investigation, professional secret, rights of the defence

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/19

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the Directive into national
law expired on 5 October 2005.

Appeal brought on 8 December 2007 by Akzo Nobel
Chemicals Ltd, Akcros Chemicals Ltd against the judgment
of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on
17 September 2007 in Case T-253/03: Akzo Nobel
Chemicals Ld and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v the Commission
of the European Communities

(1) OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15.

(Case C-550/07 P)

(2008/C 37/28)

Language of the case: English

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki
Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Republic of Poland)
lodged on 4 December 2007 — Uwe Rüffler v Dyrektor
Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu — Ośrodek Zamiejscowy
w Wałbrzychu

Parties

(Case C-544/07)

(2008/C 37/27)

Language of the case: Polish

Appellants: Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd, Akcros Chemicals Ltd
(represented by: C. Swaak, advocaat, M. Mollica and M. van der
Woude, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities, Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the
European Union, Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van
Advocaten, Association européenne des juristes d'entreprise
(AEJE), American Corporate Counsel Association (ACCA) —
European Chapter, International Bar Association

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Regional
Administrative Court, Wrocław) (Poland)

Form of order sought

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uwe Rüffler

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu — Ośrodek
Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu (Director of the Wrocław Tax Divi-
sion, Wałbrzych office)

Question referred

Must the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 12 EC and
Article 39(1) and (2) EC be construed as precluding the national
provision contained in Article 27b of the Law of 26 July 1991
on income tax payable by natural persons, which restricts the
right to a reduction of income tax by the amount of compul-
sory health insurance contributions paid to contributions paid
exclusively on the basis of provisions of national law, in the case
where a resident pays in another Member State compulsory
health insurance contributions deducted from income taxed in
Poland?

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of
17 September 2007 in Case T-253/03, insofar as it rejected
the claim of LPP for communications with Akzo Nobel's in-
house lawyer;

— annul

the Rejection Decision of 8 May 2003 of
the
Commission, in as far as it refused to return the e-mail cor-
respondence with Akzo Nobel's in-house lawyer (part of Set
B documents);

— order the Commission to pay costs of this appeal and of the
proceedings before the CFI in as far as they concern the plea
raised in the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that by rejecting this claim, the CFI
violated Community Law. In particular, the Appellants contend
that by strictly following a partial and literal interpretation of a
few paragraphs of AM&S Europe v Commission (1), the CFI:

1. gave incorrect interpretation of the principle of LPP as it is
thereby violating the principle of

explained in AM&S,
equality (section B)

C 37/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.2.2008

2.

in the alternative, by refusing to reinterpret the principle of
LPP in view of the significant developments in the legal land-
scape, violated the general principles of protection of the
rights of defence and of legal certainty (section C); and

3.

in the further alternative, violated Article 5 EC (principle of
attribution of competence) and the principle of national
procedural autonomy (section D).

sure of the registered reference number or numbers of the
location of the release?

(1) OJ 1990 L 117, p. 15.
(2) Directive 2003/4/EC of 28 January 2003 of the European Parliament
and of the Council on public access to environmental information
and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26).

(1) Case 155/79, (1982) p. 1575.

Action brought on 13 December 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v French Republic

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat
(France) lodged on 11 December 2007 — Commune de
Sausheim v Pierre Azelvandre

(Case C-552/07)

(2008/C 37/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

(Case C-556/07)

(2008/C 37/30)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'Etat

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Commune de Sausheim

Respondent: Pierre Azelvandre

Questions referred

1. Must ‘the location where the release’ of genetically modified
organisms ‘will be carried out’ which, under Article 19 of
Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the
deliberate release into the environment of genetically modi-
fied organisms (1), may not be kept confidential, mean the
registered parcel of land or a larger geographical area corre-
sponding either to the commune in which the release occurs
or to an even greater area such as a Canton or Department?

2. If the location is to be understood as requiring designation
of the registered parcel of land, can an exception relating to
the protection of public order or other confidential matters
protected by law preclude, on the basis of Article 95 of the
Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, now
the European [Union], or of Directive 2003/4/EC (2) of
28 January 2003 on public access to environmental informa-
tion or of a general principle of Community law, the disclo-

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Nolin, M. van Heezik, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing sufficiently to monitor, inspect and
supervise fishing activities, in particular in the light of the
prohibition of drift nets for the capture of certain species,
and by not ensuring that appropriate measures against those
responsible for infringements of the Community legislation
on the use of drift nets were taken, the French Republic
failed in its obligations under Articles 2 and 31(1) and (2) of
Regulation No 2847/1993 (1) and Articles 23(1) and (2),
24 and 25(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2371/2002 (2);

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Commission alleges that the defendant applied
the Community legislation on fisheries incorrectly. That incor-
rect application consists, first, in the fact that the French autho-
rities did not consider a ‘thonaille’ (a tuna gillnet) to be a drag
net although, by reason of
the
thonaille is one and, as such, is prohibited by Community legis-
lation. The fact that the thonaille can be stabilised with the aid
of a floating anchor is, in that regard, irrelevant inasmuch as
that stabilisation does not imply that the thonaille cannot drift
with sea currents or the wind, but only that it is held by floats
and weights in order to optimise its efficiency and to prevent it
lying horizontally just below the surface.

its technical characteristics,