# C_2005143EN.01004101.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/41

---

Action brought on 11 April 2005 by the Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid and Madrid, Infraestructuras del Transporte (MINTRA) against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-148/05)

(2005/C 143/77)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 2005 by the Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid and Madrid, Infraestructuras del Transporte (MINTRA), having its principal place of business in Madrid, represented by C. Fernández Vicién, D. Ortega Peciña and J. Sabater Marotias, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission's decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the defendant's decision classifying MINTRA in the general sector ‘public administrations’, in accordance with the ‘European system of accounts — ESA 1995’ provided for in Annex A to Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community. (1) The ESA 1995 consists of a series of definitions, nomenclatures and rules of accounting methodology which the Member States apply when drawing up their national accounts and economic statistics. That accounting system is also used for the application of the excessive deficit procedure.

1

MINTRA is a public-law entity of the Comunidad de Madrid attached to the Consejería de Transportes e Infraestructuras. It has legal personality and its own assets and also full capacity to act. It also has the capacity to incur autonomous debts with regard to the Comunidad de Madrid.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

| — | breach of various rules of the ESA 1995 on the classification of institutional units as ‘market’ or ‘non-market’ entities; |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of various rules of the ESA 1995 on the classification of institutional units as ‘market’ or ‘non-market’ entities;

| — | breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, in so far as the contested decision presumes a radical change in the position of Eurostat concerning the classification adopted by that body vis-à-vis MINTRA by letter of 14 February 2003, a reclassification which resulted from a declaration of Eurostat to the same effect in a very similar case, that of the Austrian public entity Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft. Significant, in that regard, is the fact that the decision has extremely serious financial consequences for the applicant and for MINTRA, since the debt of that public entity will be incorporated in the accounts of the Comunidad de Madrid. Furthermore, MINTRA could be obliged to rescind the contracts already entered into in connection with the plan to expand the metropolitan railway network, which the Comunidad de Madrid undertook on the basis of the classification of February 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, in so far as the contested decision presumes a radical change in the position of Eurostat concerning the classification adopted by that body vis-à-vis MINTRA by letter of 14 February 2003, a reclassification which resulted from a declaration of Eurostat to the same effect in a very similar case, that of the Austrian public entity Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft. Significant, in that regard, is the fact that the decision has extremely serious financial consequences for the applicant and for MINTRA, since the debt of that public entity will be incorporated in the accounts of the Comunidad de Madrid. Furthermore, MINTRA could be obliged to rescind the contracts already entered into in connection with the plan to expand the metropolitan railway network, which the Comunidad de Madrid undertook on the basis of the classification of February 2003;

vis-à-vis

| — | breach of the obligation to state reasons, in that, among other reasons, the contested decision lacks any reference to its legal basis and to the specific factual elements on which it is based. |
| --- | --- |

—

breach of the obligation to state reasons, in that, among other reasons, the contested decision lacks any reference to its legal basis and to the specific factual elements on which it is based.

---

(1)  OJEC L 310 of 30.11.1996, p. 1.

1

---