20.10.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/17

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

(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 the European Communities

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-216/05;

—

Declare the Appellant's requests in Case T-216/05 admissible and well-founded;

—

Grant the application for annulment made in first instance or, in the alternative, refer the case to the Court of First Instance to rule on the merits; and

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to bear all costs and expenses of both proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance (hereafter ‘CFI’) did not ensure that the law is observed in the interpretation 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 the CFI erroneously held that the defendant was right to 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 acceptable 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).