Case C-369/06: Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 28 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
Date: 2007-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, EU Member State, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, economic relations, national implementing measure, public sector

C 297/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.12.2007

Action brought on 26 October 2007 — French Republic v
Council of the European Union

been subject to technical adjustments in order to reduce as far
as possible the risk of by-catches and, in particular, by-catches
of protected species.

(Case C-479/07)

(2007/C 297/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. De
Bergues and A.-L. During, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A.
de Gregorio Merino and M-M Joséphidès, Agents)

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 809/2007 of 28 June
2007 amending Regulations
(EC)
No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 as concerns drift
nets (1);

(EC) No 894/97,

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

lodged at

the Registry of

the Court of First

Justice by order of

By its action,
the Court of First
Instance on 10 October 2007 (received by fax on 5 October
2007) and referred to the Court of Justice under Article 51 and
the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Statute of the Court
of
Instance (Eighth
Chamber) of 26 October 2007, the applicant disputes the defi-
in Regulation
nition of
No 809/2007 to the extent that it includes stabilised nets such
as the ‘thonaille’
In
extending to those nets the prohibition of drift nets laid down
by Regulations 894/2007, 812/2004 and 2187/2005,
the
present regulation infringes both the obligation to provide
reasons and the principles of proportionality and non-discrimi-
nation.

(a tuna gillnet) among such drift nets.

‘drift net’ adopted by the Council

By its first plea, the applicant claims that the Council failed in
its obligation to provide reasons by not mentioning in the
contested regulation, first, the reasons which led it to include
stabilised nets among drift nets and therefore to extend the
substantive scope of the restrictions applicable to that type of
nets and, second, the scientific and technical opinions it relied
upon when adopting that measure.

By its second plea, the applicant complains of the manifestly
inappropriate character of the prohibition of stabilised nets such
as the thonaille, both with regard to the objective pursued by
the regulations cited above which aim to limit the uncontrolled
expansion of fishing activities carried out with drift gillnets and
with regard to the objective of limiting by-catches. Carried out
on a very small scale by a limited number of small vessels,
fishing by thonaille is in fact a traditional activity practised on a
small stretch of Mediterranean coastline which does not present
any risk of uncontrolled expansion. The thonaille has moreover

By its third plea, the applicant alleges finally an infringement of
the principle of non-discrimination since the contested regu-
lation treats the thonaille in the same way as drift gillnets
whereas the two categories are different both with regard to the
particular technical characteristics of
the thonaille and with
regard to the small number of vessels concerned and the limited
scale of the fishing activities.

(1) OJ 2007 L 182, p. 1.

Order of the President of the Court of 29 August 2007 —
Commission of the European Communities v Republic of
Malta

(Case C-136/06) (1)

(2007/C 297/53)

Language of the case: English

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

(1) OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.

Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the
Court of 28 June 2007 — Commission of the European
Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-369/06) (1)

(2007/C 297/54)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case
be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.