Case C-410/00: Action brought on 9 November 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden
Date: 2001-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Sweden, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, rail transport, technical regulations, trans-European network

C 28/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.1.2001

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission decision of 26 July 2000(1); and

— order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Commission is inconsistent in its criteria in this regard,
since in paragraph 35 of
the contested decision it
describes the aid as aid to investment while, on the other
hand, in paragraph 38 it describes it as operating aid.

(1) Commission Decision C(2000) 2465 Final concerning the system
of aid granted by Spain for the purchase of industrial vehicles by
means of the ‘Convenio de Colaboracio´ n’ of 26 February 1997
between the Ministerio de Industria y Energı´a and the Instituto de
Crédito Official.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Indeterminate nature of the contested decision: delimi-
tation of the benefits covered respectively by Article 1
(incompatible aid) and Article 2 (aid incompatible with
the common market and, accordingly, to be recovered) is
impossible. The whole category of undertakings referred
to in Article 1 and, in particular, those which are caught
by the definition of ‘operating at local or regional level
does not exist as a concept under Spanish law’.

— Non-selective aid: the measures contained in the Convenio
do not favour certain undertakings or productions, since
the subsidies which it envisages are not aimed at a defined
set of recipients but at all possible beneficiaries in general.
The fact of requiring that beneficiaries should be natural
persons or small or medium-sized enterprises constitutes
an objective condition requiring that
they be in an
objectively similar situation.

— Absence of discrimination: the implementing rules for
the Convenio do not require that the vehicle which must
be withdrawn from circulation should belong to the
beneficiary of the subsidy — the vehicle may belong to a
third party with which the beneficiary may have entered
into an agreement to that end. Thus, there is no distortion
of competition to the detriment of those hauliers not
established in Spain.

— Competition is not distorted: the impact at Community
level of the system of aid provided for by the Convenio
on competition in transport is entirely insignificant —
the requirements laid down in Article 87(1) EC are not
met.

— Infringement of Article 87(3)(c) EC: in the view of the
Kingdom of Spain, concern for the environment and
traffic safety justify application in the present case of
Article 87(3)(c), since it
the measures
proposed in those two sectors will have a positive impact,
without resulting in an increase in capacity. The measures
provided for in the Convenio cannot be characterised as
operating aid but rather as aid for investment linked to
the restructuring of the pool of industrial vehicles. The

is clear that

Action brought on 9 November 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Sweden

(Case C-410/00)

(2001/C 28/25)

An action against
the Kingdom of Sweden was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
9 November 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius and Christina
Tufvesson, Legal Advisers in the Commission’s Legal Service,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz, also of that service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 96/48/EC (1) of 23 July 1996 on the
interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail
system, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive,

2.

order the Kingdom of Sweden to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
relied on in Case C-407/00 (2); the period prescribed for
transposition of the directive expired on 8 April 1999.

(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 6.
(2) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.