Case C-456/00: Action brought on 18 December 2000 by French Republic against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for annulment (EU), grubbing premium, plantation, viticulture

C 45/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.2.2001

Action brought on 6 December 2000 by the Kingdom of
the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
Communities

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Case C-452/00)

(2001/C 45/23)

— annul the Commission Decision C(2000) 2754 final of
20 September 2000 on State aid put into effect by France
in the wine sector;

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 6 December 2000 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by J. van Bakel, of the European Law
Section in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 (1)
of 29 September 2000 providing for the continued
application of safeguard measures for imports from the
overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products
with EC/OCT cumulation of origin;

2. Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-

ings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case C-180/00 (2). Article 109(2) of the OCT decision has also
been infringed inasmuch as the safeguard measures adopted
are not appropriate for removing the difficulties which the
Commission considers to be present.

(1) OJ 2000 L 246 of 30.09.2000, p. 64.
(2) OJ 2000 C 211 of 22.07.2000, p. 10.

Action brought on 18 December 2000 by French Republic
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-456/00)

(2001/C 45/24)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 18 December 2000 by the French Republic,
represented by G. de Bergues, head of sub-directorate at the
Legal Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and
by L. Bernheim, secretary for foreign affairs at the same
ministry, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8B Boulevard Joseph II.

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

on

decision,

Commission

— The Commission was wrong to base itself, in the contest-
ed
Regulation
No 1493/2000 (1). The aid was notified in February
1999 under Regulation No 822/87 (2). Although the
Commission decision was adopted in September 2000
under the new Regulation No 1493/1999 (3), which
entered into force on 21 July 1999, it was Regulation No
822/87 which was binding on the Member States until
August 2000, that is to say during nearly the whole of
the period when the Commission investigated the aid.

— (In the alternative)

Incompatibility of
decision with Regulation No 1493/2000

the contested

— The Commission is wrong to find the French
aid incompatible on the ground that it does not
sufficiently reduce yields of the Ugni-blanc grape
variety. Contrary to what the Commission main-
tains, Regulation No 1493/1999 does not establish
a correlation between the conversion of land and
any obligation on the Member States to reduce yield
— and thus production — on non-converted land.

for

— Error in law: by requiring an ‘assurance that restruc-
turing of 1 000 hectares would be accompanied by
grubbing-up of an equivalent area’, the Commission
adds a condition to the conversion of vineyards
provided
in Article 11 of Regulation
No 1493/1999, whereas there is nothing in that
Article to say that conversion of a given area must
be accompanied by the grubbing-up of an equivalent
area. Limitation of the right to replant on converted
surfaces provided for by Commission Regulation
No 1227/2000 (4), and in particular Article 13
thereof, cannot be treated like the grubbing up of
non-converted land.

10.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 45/13

— The Commission is wrong to accuse the French
authorities of not having taken account of the
capacity of the market to absorb new quantities of
regional wines produced following the planned
varietal conversion.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1493/2000 of 10 July 2000
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry
price of certain fruit and vegetables OJ 2000 L 170, p. 1.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the
common organization of the market in wine (OJ 1987 L 84, p. 1).
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the
common organisation of the market in wine OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1.
(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000 of 31 May 2000
laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 1493/1999 (OJ 2000 L 143, p. 1).

Action brought on 18 December 2000 by the Kingdom
of Belgium against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-457/00)

(2001/C 45/25)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 18 December 2000 by the Kingdom of
Belgium, represented by A. Snoecx, acting as Agent, and by
J.M. De Backer, G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Kingdom of Belgium claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission decision of 20 September 2000,
No C 40/99, entitled ‘State Aid in favour of Verlipack —
Belgium’;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of Articles 87 and 295 EC

— By assuming that the loan of 28 March 1997 and
the compulsory loan of 27 March 1997 granted by
the Société Régionale d’Investissement de Wallonie
(‘SRIW’), a limited liability company wholly owned

by the Walloon Region, to Hermann Heye consti-
tuted aid by virtue of the fact that the Walloon
Region had made a capital contribution in favour of
Verlipack Holding II, the Commission misinterpret-
ed the concept of State aid and prejudged the
substance of the file, in breach of Articles 87 and
295 EC. The SRIW acted in accordance with the
the private investor. Following the
criterion of
example of the private partners (the Beaulieu Group
and the banks of the Verlipack Group), the SRIW,
like the Walloon Region in the grant of its capital
contribution, behaved like a private investor in the
procedure for examining the file and bearing in
mind information supplied by the Heye Group
which had all the appearances of credibility for
the future of the Verlipack Group. The fact that
insolvency occurred 22 months after the public
interventions were made cannot demonstrate a
posteriori that, in March 1997, the SRIW, like the
Walloon Region, did not act as a private investor.
The Heye Group is the actual debtor of the funds
lent by the SRIW. The use made by the Heye Group
of the funds placed at its disposal by the SRIW under
normal market conditions cannot be made subject
to examination by the Commission pursuant to the
State aid rules, and, a fortiori, cannot be classified as
aid on the ground that those funds were initially of
public origin and their final beneficiary did not
remain the Heye Group.

— By taking the view that the whole of the compulsory
loan of 27 March 1997 of the Heye Group consti-
tuted aid, the Commission misinterpreted the con-
cept of aid. The clause for abandoning the debt
presented a less significant risk than the Commission
might think, since, despite the insolvency of the
three operating companies which occurred in Janua-
ry 1999, that clause cannot prevent the repayment
of the amount of the SRIW’s loan by reason of the
early rescission of that agreement invoked by the
SRIW before the conditions of the contested aban-
donment clause were met.

— Concerning the loan of 28 March 1997, the Com-
mission contented itself with applying its reference
rate automatically without carrying out an examin-
ation of the particular circumstances of the case,
although the Belgian authorities were asking it to do
so. By so doing, the Commission declined to exercise
the discretion conferred upon it by Article 87 EC.

— In its examination of the capital contribution to
Verlipack Holding II, the Commission generalised
from interventions of a completely different legal
character, since it took into consideration the two
loans granted by the SRIW to Hermann Heye as if
they had been direct capital contributions in favour
of Verlipack Holding II.

— Infringement of the duty to state reasons.