Appeal brought on 18 May 2007 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 15 March 2007 in Case T-5/07 Belgium v Commission

(Case C-242/07 P)

(2007/C 170/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agent, J.-P. Buyle and C. Steyaert, avocats)

The other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward four grounds in support of its appeal.

By its first ground of appeal the appellant claims that the contested order is vitiated by a failure to state adequate reasons in so far as, infringing Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the order cites the case-law relating to unforeseeable circumstances and excusable error without stating the reasons why the circumstances put forward by the appellant do not constitute such unforeseeable circumstances or are not the source of such an excusable error.

By its second ground of appeal the appellant further claims that the Court of First Instance erred in law in the application of the conditions for the existence of an excusable error, in deciding that issues linked to the functioning of the appellant's services cannot, of themselves, render the error committed excusable. Community case-law, relating to excusable error states that it covers exceptional circumstances, without any restrictions as to the context in which those circumstances occur.

By its third ground of appeal the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance erred in law, or, at the very least, failed to comply with its duty to give reasons, by failing to examine one of the arguments that had been raised before it, based on the excessive procedural rigour which the appellant would be subject to if its appeal was rejected as inadmissible even though, in the present action, it has shown great care and, in particular, sent the application by fax well before the expiry of the time-limit for bringing an appeal.

By its fourth ground of appeal the appellant claims that the rejection of an application, on the ground that it is out of time, when the application was sent beforehand, within the requisite period, by fax, to the registry is contrary to the principle of proportionality. Compliance with that principle means an application lodged with the Registry by fax within the requisite time period set down by the EC Treaty should not be declared inadmissible — even when the original signed application arrives at the Registry more than ten days later — as long as that application was lodged within ten days following the last day on which the lodging of the application by fax was possible.