28.8.1999 EN C 246/43 Official Journal of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should: Pleas in law and main arguments
— annul Commission Decision C (1999) 533 of 4 March
This is an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision 1999 or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the grant
(C(1999)41 final) of 3 February 1999 on State aid awarded by to be repaid to the Commission to such extent as may be
the Spanish Government to the applicant company. In that decided in the course of the proceedings;
decision, the Commission declared that the Spanish authorities
had granted to Hijos de Andrés Molina S.A. — a producer of — order the Commission to pay the costs.meat, dairy products and animal feed, now in liquidation —
State aid incompatible with the EC Treaty, and that thatamount should be repaid.Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant contests Commission Decision C (1999) 533 of In support of its claims, the applicant alleges the following
4 March 1999, which reduces the contribution made to one grounds for annulment:
of its subsidiaries by the Commission under Commission
Decision C (96) 2235 of 13 September 1996 concerning grant— infringement of Articles 87 and 88(3) of the EC Treaty [exof the EAGGF, Guidance Section, contribution under CouncilArticles 92 and 93(3)], in so far as the aid granted prior toRegulation (EEC) No 4256/88 (
1), in connection with Project1995 must be regarded as compatible with the commonNo 95.ES.06.005 entitled ‘Demonstrative project for themarket;processing of castor-oil plants ( Ricinus Communis ) in agricul-
tural undertakings for the extraction of natural aromatic
— manifest error in the findings of fact and infringement of essences’.
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty in that the steps taken by
the public creditors in the legal proceedings for suspensionThe pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those inof payments cannot be considered to constitute State aidCase T-141/99 Vela s.r.l. v Commission.because they do not meet the requirement of specificity
nor do they comply with the rules of Spanish competition
law;(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988
laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No
2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (OJ L 337 of — infringement of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty in that the24.12.1994, p. 11).Commission considered the increase in capital by way of
credit set-off on the part of the applicant to constituteState aid;
— manifest error in the findings of fact and infringement of
Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty and of the Community
rules applicable in the area of State aid for the restructuringand rescue of companies, in that the rescue aid granted toAction brought on 24 June 1999 by Hijos de Andrésthe applicant between May and December 1995 was notMolina S.A. (in liquidation) against the Commission of theconsidered to be compatible with the common market.European Communities
(Case T-152/99) The applicant company also alleges that the contested decision
fails to take into account that the restructuring plan drawn upby it fulfils the requirements of compatibility with the common(1999/C 246/85)market since that plan clearly reduced the applicant’s pro-
duction capacity, re-established its viability and succeeded in
protecting the interests of third parties in the procedure which(Language of the case: Spanish )led to its reprivatisation.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Further, the applicant is also of the view that the decision fails ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
to take into account the principle that reasons must be given European Communities on 24 June 1999 by Hijos de Andrés
for measures adopted. In particular, it claims in that regard Molina S.A., whose registered office is in Seville, Spain,
that the decision simply precludes the possible application of represented by Luis Manuel Olivencia Brugger and José Luis
Article 87(3)(a) without complying with the corresponding Ballester Garcı ´a-Izquierdo, with an address for service in
obligations to provide reasons which arise by virtue of the Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Arendt, 7 Val Ste. Croix,
discretion enjoyed. B.P. 522.
The applicant claims that the Court should:Finally, the applicant company challenges whether the require-
ment that intra-Community trade be affected applies in this— annul the Commission’s decision of 3 February 1999 on case.the State aid granted by the Spanish Government to Hijos
de Andrés Molina S.A.;
— order that the Commission pay the costs.