C 302/32 EN 21.10.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
— Error in the reasoning; Action brought on 23 August 2000 by Cooperativa Mare
Azzurro scrl and Others against Commission of the
European Communities — The Commission unlawfully concluded that, notwith-
standing a marked upward trend, the market in question
is in decline;
(Case T-218/00)
— The decision is vitiated in so far as it uses a mean annual
rate for the entire manufacturing industry equivalent
(2000/C 302/75) to 5,78%;
— The Commission failed to notify the applicant of the
principal facts underlying its decision in regard to the use
(Language of the case: Italian) of the coefficient of 0,75.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 August 2000 by Cooperativa
Mare Azzurro scrl and Others, represented by GiuseppeBoscolo, of the Venice Bar.
Action brought on 21 August 2000 by Antena 3 de
Televisio ´n, S.A. against the Commission of the European The applicants claim that the Court should:
Communities
— annul wholly or, in the alternative, in part the contested
(Case T-216/00) decision and/or in any event declare the contested
decision to be of no effect in respect of the applicantsand furthermore order the defendant to pay the costs.(2000/C 302/74)
(Language of the case: Spanish)Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of theThe applicants in the present case, cooperatives which provideEuropean Communities on 21 August 2000 by Antena 3 deservices to several hundred small fishing undertakingsTelevisio ´n, established in Madrid, represented by Fernandooperating from Venice and Chioggia, challenge the contestedPombo Garcı ´a, Emiliano Garayar Gutiérrez and Rosario Alonsodecision of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice andPérez-Villanueva, lawyers.Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions
under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (
1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
That decision declares certain aid received by those undertak- — annul Commission Decision 2000/400/EC of 10 May
ings to be incompatible with the common market. 2000 (‘Eurovision’); and
— order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred by
Antena 3 de Televisio ´n, S.A. in the present proceedings. In support of their application, the applicants claim that:
— The Commission did not find that the aid in questionPleas in law and main argumentsconstitutes an arrangement for a three-year period and
is thus not recoverable under Article 15 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 layingThe pleas in law and main arguments are the same as thosedown detailed rules for the application of Article 93 ofput forward in Case T-185/00 Métropole Télévision M 6 (1).the EC Treaty (2).
(1) Not yet published.— The contested decision fails to take into account the
situation concerning rents and occupancy in Chioggia’sold town, inasmuch as it does not apply the derogation
provided for in Article 87(3)(a) of the Treaty.
21.10.2000 EN C 302/33 Official Journal of the European Communities
— Excluding the fishing industry from the de minimis rule, Action brought on 30 August 2000 by Porto di Venezia
scrl against Commission of the European Communities applicable in cases of State aid, amounts to failure to
observe the principle of equal treatment as between the
various sectors, at least where, as in the present case, the
(Case T-228/00) aid relates to social contributions charged by the State for
the operation of services and not to investment costs
freely incurred by the undertaking.
(2000/C 302/77)
— The modest scale of the applicant undertakings, their
local nature and the damage which could be caused byrepayment of the aid render unsustainable an argument
(Language of the case: Italian)claiming that the relief has an impact on trade between
Member States.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-— Article 87(3)(d) of the Treaty has been infringed inasmuchties was brought before the Court of First Instance of theas Chioggia and the Lagoon of Venice have specialEuropean Communities on 30 August 2000 by Porto dicultural links with fishing that cannot be ignored.Venezia scrl, represented by Francesco Munari, of the Genoa
Bar.
(1) OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50.
(2) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission decision of 25 November 1999
on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of
relief from social security contributions under LawsNos 30/1997 and 206/1995 in so far as it excludes fromAction brought on 28 August 2000 by Andrea GaulArticle 4 undertakings, such as the applicant, which findagainst the Commission of the European Communitiesthemselves in circumstances identical to those of the
undertakings mentioned in the aforementioned article,
(Case T-225/00) and order the Commission to adopt any appropriate
measure to comply with the judgment of this Court;
(2000/C 302/76)
— make any other order as the Court may see fit in order to
ensure compliance with the judgment, as well as an order(Language of the case: German)requiring the Commission to pay the costs incurred by
the applicant.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 August 2000 by Andrea Gaul,
of Olching (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Pleas in law and main arguments
Christian Boetzkes, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg (Federal Republic
of Germany).
The decision being contested in this action is the same as
The applicant claims that the Court should annul, pursuant to that in Case T-218/00 Cooperativa Mareazzurro and Others
Article 231 EC, the decision of the Commission of the v Commission and T-221/00 Casino Municipale di Venezia
European Communities of 29 May 2000 not to include the v Commission (
1).
applicant’s name in the list of suitable candidates following the
conclusion of the procedure in open competition
COM/A/12/98, field 01 (law). In support of its application, the applicant, an undertaking
entrusted by the public authorities with running the berthing
facilities at the port of Venice, makes the following claims:
Pleas in law and main arguments
— Infringement of Articles 87 and 88 EC and of Article 7(2)The applicant took part in the European Commission’s openof Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 Marchcompetition COM/A/12/98 in the field of law and was not1999 laying down detailed rules for the application ofawarded the necessary marks in order for her name to beArticle 93 of the EC Treaty (2).included in the list of suitable candidates. By her claim, she
asserts that the marks awarded cannot be justified. On thecontrary, she proved to a sufficient standard in the tests that — Misuse of powers inasmuch as a manifest error has been
she possessed the requisite knowledge and abilities. committed and treating it differently cannot be justified.
— Failure to state reasons.