C 331/28 EN 24.11.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should: The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare the action to be admissible;
— annul the whole of the Commission’s decision of 11 July
— annul the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) 2001 relating to the system of State aid applied by Spain
No 1281/2001 (1) in so far as it fixes the quantities to certain newly-created undertakings in Navarra (Spain),
of sugar considered necessary to supply the Azores,
maintaining in force the preceding situation;
— in the alternative, annul Article 3 of the decision on the— order the Commission of the European Communities toground that repayment of the aid is unjustified,pay all the costs.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty (now Article 253
EC): manifestly inadequate and inconsistent statement of
reasons, Pleas in law and main arguments
Infringement of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992: the forecast supply
The applicant is challenging Commission Decision balance, drawn up by the Commission, does not take account
C(2001)1762 final of 11 July 2001 in so far as it characterises of traditional trade flows,
as State aid incompatible with the common market the tax
reductions under Articles 52 to 56 of the Ley Foral (Regional
Infringement of Article 227 of the EC Treaty (now, after Law) 24/1996 del impuesto sobre sociedades (Regional Law
amendment, Article 299 EC): failure to take account of the on corporation tax) of 30 December 1996 (Boletı ´n Oficial de
said provision when interpreting and applying legislative Navarra No 159 of 31 December 1996) which provide for a
provisions applicable to the outermost regions, reduction of 50 % on the aforementioned tax for undertakings
which take up business in the Autonomous Community of
Navarra after the entry into force of that Law, provided theyInfringement of Article 4(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 7(1)invest a minimum of ESP 100 million (EUR 601 012 ) andEC): the Commission has exercised its executive powers in acreate more than 10 new jobs.manifestly abusive and unlawful manner,
Breach of the principle of proportionality: the effects of the
forecast made in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1281/2000According to the applicant, the contested decision wronglyare unfair and unreasonable.finds that the fiscal regime in question provides for aid within
the meaning of Community law, given that they do not
comply with the requirements of Article 87 of the EC Treaty:(1) OJ L 176, 29.6.2001, p. 12.
(a) State resources are not involved. A measure granting a
fiscal reduction does not entail a reduction in Staterevenue, since that would imply that there is a homo-
geneous tax debt for which all tax payers are liable.
Action brought on 24 September 2001 by Gobierno
Foral de Navarra against Commission of the European
Communities (b) So far as concerns the charge that competition and trade
are affected, there are a number of reasons for the view
that the Commission has not given an adequate reason (Case T-225/01)
for its finding:
(2001/C 331/46)
— The Commission has not given the reasons on which(Language of the case: Spanish)its decision is based. Despite having in the file full
details regarding the undertakings concerned, the
decision contains no analysis whatever either of the
competitive situation of the only two undertakings An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the to which the reduction has been applied and the
extent to which they are involved in intra-Com- European Communities on 24 September 2001 by Gobierno
Foral de Navarra (Navarra Regional Government), Navarra munity trade or even of the economic sectors in
which they operate. (Spain), represented by Marcos Araujo Boyd, lawyer.
24.11.2001 EN C 331/29 Official Journal of the European Communities
— If the Commission were to apply such reasoning Pleas in law and main arguments
generally to all fiscal legislation, it would arrive atthe absurd conclusion that any change in the fiscal
burden constitutes State aid.The applicant has brought the present action against the
Commission in order to seek compensation for the damage
allegedly suffered as a result of the decisions adopted in the— If the Commission carried its reasoning to its finalcontext of the tender procedure opened in relation to thelogical conclusion, the result would be that anysupply of fruit juice and fruit jams intended for the people ofvariation within the regulatory framework in whichArmenia and Azerbaijan under Commission Regulation (EC)undertakings operate would constitute State aid.No 228/96 of 7 February 1996 on the supply of fruit juice
and fruit jams intended for the people of Armenia and
Azerbaijan (OJ 1996 L 30, p. 18), in particular decision (c) The applicant refutes the charge that the measures at
C(96)1916 of 22 July 1996 and decision C(96)2208 of issue are selective and specific in nature, since, first, the
6 September 1996. legislation is general in nature, not favouring a particular
undertaking or sector over another and, secondly, the
authority competent to apply it does not enjoy anydiscretion but can instead merely ascertain on a case-by- Those decisions allowed for the substitution of the fruit
case basis whether the conditions laid down for triggering provided for in the tender, with no legal basis nor a supraven-
the fiscal advantages are met. ing request for it.
Both decisions were challenged by the applicant (Joined Cases
T-191/96 and T-106/97) (1) before the Court of First Instance
which, by judgment of 14 October 1999, annulled the decisionof 6 September 1996, declaring the action brought in Case
T-106/97 inadmissible on the ground that it was out of time.
Action brought on 25 September 2001 by CAS Succhi diThe pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those putFrutta SpA against the Commission of the Europeanforward in the abovementioned cases.Communities
(Case T-226/01)(1) [1999] ECR II-3181.
(2001/C 331/47)
(Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 25 September 2001 by Territorio
Histo ´rico de Alava — Excma. Diputacio ´n de Alava, andAn action against the Commission of the European Communi-the Comunidad auto ´noma del Paı ´s Vasco — Gobiernoties was brought before the Court of First Instance of theVasco against Commission of the European CommunitiesEuropean Communities on 25 September 2001 by CAS Succhi
di Frutta SpA, represented by Gian Michele Roberti and
Francesco Sciaudone, lawyers. (Case T-227/01)
(2001/C 331/48)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Language of the case: Spanish)
— find that the Commission has incurred non-contractual
liability by adopting the decisions of 22 July and of
6 September 1996,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the — declare that the applicant suffered damage as a result of
European Communities on 25 September 2001 by the Territo- those decisions amounting to ITL 2 682 049 410,
rio Histo ´rico de Alava — Excma. Diputacio ´n de Alava, and the
Comunidad auto ´noma del Paı ´s Vasco — Gobierno Vasco,
Alava (Spain), represented by Ramo ´n Falco ´n, lawyer. — order the Commission to pay the costs.