# C_2007042EN.01000802.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/8

---

Appeal brought on 27 November 2006 by British Aggregates Association against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 13 September 2006 in Case T-210/02: British Aggregates Association v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-487/06 P)

(2007/C 42/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: British Aggregates Association (represented by: C. Pouncey, Solicitor, L. Van den Hende, advocaat)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the CFI of 13 September 2006 in Case T-210/02; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the CFI of 13 September 2006 in Case T-210/02;

| — | annul Commission decision C(2002) 1478fin of 24 April 2002‘State aid N863/01-United Kingdom/Aggregates Levy’, save as regards the exemption for Northern Ireland; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission decision C(2002) 1478fin of 24 April 2002‘State aid N863/01-United Kingdom/Aggregates Levy’, save as regards the exemption for Northern Ireland; and

| — | to order the Commission to pay the Appellant's costs in this appeal and the procedure in Case T-210/01 in the CFI. |
| --- | --- |

—

to order the Commission to pay the Appellant's costs in this appeal and the procedure in Case T-210/01 in the CFI.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the contested judgment of the Court of First Instance should be set aside on the following grounds:

| — | The Court of First Instance erred in law by assessing the existence of state aid in a non-objective way. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Court of First Instance erred in law by assessing the existence of state aid in a non-objective way.

| — | The Court of First Instance erred in law by distinguishing the situation of the AGL from the situation at issue in Adria-Wien Pipeline (1) when assessing selectivity. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Court of First Instance erred in law by distinguishing the situation of the AGL from the situation at issue in Adria-Wien Pipeline (1) when assessing selectivity.

1

| — | The Court of First Instance erred in law by accepting that an environmental levy is non-selective because it is applied to a specific sector, without requiring or providing a clear definition of that sector. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Court of First Instance erred in law by accepting that an environmental levy is non-selective because it is applied to a specific sector, without requiring or providing a clear definition of that sector.

| — | The Court of First Instance erred in law by applying the wring ‘standard of review’ to the Commission decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Court of First Instance erred in law by applying the wring ‘standard of review’ to the Commission decision.

| — | The Court of First Instance erred in its assessment of the ‘nature and general scheme’ of the AGL. and in relation to the issue of the export exemption. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Court of First Instance erred in its assessment of the ‘nature and general scheme’ of the AGL. and in relation to the issue of the export exemption.

| — | The Court of First Instance erred in law by confirming that the Commission was under no obligation to initiate a formal investigation procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Court of First Instance erred in law by confirming that the Commission was under no obligation to initiate a formal investigation procedure.

| — | The Court of First Instance erred in law by finding that the contested decision is sufficiently reasoned. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Court of First Instance erred in law by finding that the contested decision is sufficiently reasoned.

---

(1)  [2001]ECR I-8365.

1

---