Case C-6/08 P: Appeal brought on 2 January 2008 by U.S. Steel Košice, s.r.o. against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 1 October 2007 in Case T-27/07: U.S. Steel Košice, s.r.o. v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2008-01-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Slovakia, State aid, action for annulment (EU), iron and steel industry, tradeable emission permit

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/29

(iii) Can a temporary act of reproduction be regarded as ‘tran-
sient’ where the reproduction is processed, for example, by
the creation of a text file on the basis of an image file or
by a search for text strings on the basis of a text file?

(xii) Can the user's efficiency gains from temporary acts of
reproduction be taken into account in assessing whether
the acts have ‘independent economic significance’
(see
Article 5(1) of the Infosoc Directive)?

(iv) Can a temporary act of reproduction be regarded as ‘tran-
sient’ where part of the reproduction, consisting of one or
more text extracts of 11 words, is stored?

(v) Can a temporary act of reproduction be regarded as ‘tran-
sient’ where part of the reproduction, consisting of one or
more text extracts of 11 words, is printed out?

(xiii) Can the scanning by a commercial business of entire
newspaper articles, subsequent processing of the reproduc-
tion, and the storing and possible printing out of part of
the reproduction, consisting of one or more text extracts
of 11 words, without the rightholder's consent be regarded
as constituting ‘certain special cases which do not conflict
with a normal exploitation’ of the newspaper articles and
‘not unreasonably [prejudicing] the legitimate interests of
the rightholder’ (see Article 5(5))?

(1) Directive 2001/29/EC of

the
Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of
copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ L 167,
p. 10).

the European Parliament and of

(vi) Is

the stage of

the technological process at which
to
temporary acts of reproduction take place relevant
whether they constitute ‘an integral and essential part of a
technological process’
the Infosoc
Directive)?

(see Article 5(1) of

(vii) Can temporary acts of reproduction be an ‘integral and
essential part of a technical process’
they consist of
manual scanning of entire newspaper articles whereby the
latter are transformed from a printed medium into a
digital medium?

if

Appeal brought on 2 January 2008 by U.S. Steel Košice,
s.r.o. against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber) delivered on 1 October 2007 in Case T-27/07:
U.S. Steel Košice, s.r.o. v Commission of the European
Communities

(viii) Can temporary acts of reproduction constitute an ‘integral
and essential part of a technological process’ where they
reproduction,
consist of printing out part of
comprising one or more text extracts of 11 words?

the

(Case C-6/08 P)

(2008/C 64/42)

(ix) Does ‘lawful use’ (see Article 5(1) of the Infosoc Directive)
include any form of use which does not require the copy-
right holder's consent?

Language of the case: English

(x) Does ‘lawful use’ (see Article 5(1) of the Infosoc Directive)
include the scanning by a commercial business of entire
newspaper articles, subsequent processing of the reproduc-
tion, and the storing and possible printing out of part of
the reproduction, consisting of one or more text extracts
of 11 words, for use in the business's summary writing,
even where the rightholder has not given consent to those
acts?

Parties

Appellant: US Steel Košice, s.r.o.
Solicitor, E. Vermulst, advocaat)

(represented by: C. Thomas,

(xi) What criteria should be used to assess whether temporary
acts of reproduction have ‘independent economic signifi-
cance’
if the
(see Article 5(1) of the Infosoc Directive)
other conditions laid down in the provision are satisfied?

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

C 64/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.3.2008

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

In short, the appellant maintains that it is directly concerned by
the contested decision which rejected a formal plan to grant
emissions allowances to the appellant,
inevitably reduced the
allowances that the appellant would be allocated, and indeed
explicitly required those allowances to be reduced.

— annul the order of the Court of First Instance of 1 October
2007 in Case T-27/07 U.S. Steel Košice, s.r.o. v. Commis-
sion

— refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judg-

ment on the substance;

— order the Commission to pay the appellant's costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the appeal is based on errors of law
committed by the Court of First Instance in relation to its appli-
cation of the principles guiding the admissibility of actions and
in the interpretation of Directive 2003/87 (1), as well as the
distortion (denaturation) of the contested decision by the Court.

1. The Court of First Instance wrongly failed to recognise that
the contested decision rejected the plan of
the Slovak
Government to grant a specified amount of allowances to
the appellant.

(1) Directive 2003/87/EC of

the European Parliament and 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 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 275,
p. 32).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten
lodged on 21 January 2008 —
i Stockholm (Sweden)
Migrationsverket v Edgar Petrosian, Nelli Petrosian,
Svetlana Petrosian, David Petrosian, Maxime Petrosian

(Case C-19/08)

(2008/C 64/43)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Stockholm

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Migrationsverket

2. The Court of First Instance wrongly failed to recognise that
the contested decision inevitably led to and indeed explicitly
required a reduction in the appellant's allowances.

Defendants: Edgar Petrosian, Nelli Petrosian, Svetlana Petrosian,
David Petrosian, Maxime Petrosian

3. The Court of First Instance wrongly failed to recognise the
procedural similarity of the contested decision with a State
aid or merger control decision;

Question referred

— the

fundamental

the procedure under
Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87 are similar to State aid
and merger control;

aspects of

Are Article 20(1)(d) and Article 20(2) of Council Regulation
(EC) No 343/2003 (the Dublin Regulation) (1) to be interpreted
as meaning that responsibility for the examination of an appli-
cation for asylum passes to the Member State where the applica-
tion was lodged if the transfer is not carried out within six
months after a temporary decision has been made to suspend
the transfer and irrespective of when the final decision is made
on whether the transfer is to be carried out?

— the contested decision in fact made a State aid appraisal

of the appellant's allowances.

(1) OJ L 50, 25.2.2003, p. 1.

4. The Court of First Instance wrongly identified a ‘discretion’

in the ‘implementation’ of the contested decision.