14.9.2002 EN C 219/23 Official Journal of the European Communities
Action brought on 12 July 2002 by the British Aggregates certain sectors are not taxed in order to protect their competi-
tiveness. Therefore, the Levy must be considered to be State Association Co Limited against the Commission of the
European Communities Aid.
(Case T-210/02)
Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission failed
to state reasons in the contested Decision, as required by
Article 253 EC Treaty. According to the applicant, the (2002/C 219/54)
Commission also violated its obligation to initiate a formal
investigation procedure, where the preliminary investigation
was carried out in insufficient depth to resolve the serious (Language of the case: English)
difficulties regarding the compatibility of the measure with the
State Aid provisions. The applicant also submits that the
Commission violated its procedural obligations in the prelimi-
nary investigation. In this respect, the applicant claims that
the Commission did not conduct a diligent and impartial An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
examination of the applicant’s complaint and did not provide ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the applicant with an adequate explanation for rejecting its European Communities on 12 July 2002 by the British
arguments. Aggregates Association Co Limited, represented by Craig
Pouncey and Lode Van Den Hende of Herbert Smith, Brussels(Belgium).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Commission Decision C(2002) 1478fin of 24 April
2002 ‘State Aid N 863/01- United Kingdom/Aggregates
Levy’ save as regards the exemption for Northern Ireland;
Action brought on 15 July 2002 by Tideland Signal
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in themunitiespresent proceedings.
(Case T-211/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
(2002/C 219/55)
The applicant is an association representing smaller and(Language of the case: English)independent quarrying companies in the United Kingdom.
The competitive position of its members is affected by the
Aggregates Levy, an environmental tax raised by the UnitedKingdom on certain aggregates. The objective of the Levy is to
reflect the environmental impacts of aggregate quarrying more
An action against the Commission of the European Communi- fully in the price of aggregates. These environmental costs
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the include noise, dust, damage to biodiversity and visual amenity.
European Communities on 15 July 2002 by Tideland Signal A further objective of the Levy is the encouragement of the
Limited, represented by Christopher Thomas and Ciara Kenne- use of recycled or alternative material.
dy of Lovells, Brussels (Belgium).
In the contested Decision, the Commission declared the Levy
to be compatible with the Common Market. The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission Decision of 17 June 2002 rejectingAccording to the applicant, the Commission made a manifestthe tender submitted by Tideland Signal Limited inerror of assessment in deciding that the distinction madetender procedure EUROPEAID/112336/C/S/WW-TACIS-between taxable and non-taxable situations is justified by the(RE-TENDER);logic and nature of the tax system. The applicant claims,
however, that the objectives of the Levy cannot explain the
different treatment of similar situations. The applicant also — order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
applicant. stated that the United Kingdom authorities admitted that