Case T-32/01: Action brought on 9 February 2001 by the Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia — Diputación Foral de Bizkaia against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-04-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for annulment (EU), aid system, corporation tax, type of business

7.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 108/27

The applicant bases its claim in essence on alleged infringement
of the procedure laid down by law in Article 88 EC and in
Regulation No 659/1999 (1) as regards existing aid schemes,
and consequently pleads violation of the principles of legal
certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and the
right to a fair hearing.

It maintains in that regard that the Commission has since
1994 been aware of the existence of the Norma Foral
in
question,
the provisions of which as a whole, and not
merely Article 14, were the subject of a complaint seeking a
declaration that it was incompatible with the common market
under Article 87 of the EC Treaty.

As a result of that complaint, the Commission proceeded to
carry out a preliminary State aid investigation and sent a copy
the complaint in question to the Kingdom of Spain.
of
According to the applicant,
the Commission at no time
indicated that it was initiating, or had initiated, the formal
investigation procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC.

The fact that, in November 2000, the Commission proceeded
to initiate the inter partes procedure provided for in Article
88(2) with regard to one of the articles of Norma Foral
No 18/1993 necessarily means,
in the applicant’s view,
that the Commission has failed to comply with the legally
established procedure for investigating and assessing existing
aid schemes.

if the Commission has any
The applicant considers that,
doubts either as to whether the tax exemption provided for
may constitute aid or as to its compatibility with the common
market, it cannot categorise that exemption as new aid but
must classify it as existing aid and should proceed,
in
accordance with the principle of sound administration, to
analyse and scrutinise the same in the context of the constant
review of aid systems of that type provided for in Article 88(1)
EC.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83
of 27.3.1999, p. 1).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 28 November 2000
initiating the procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC
with regard to Article 14 of Norma Foral 11/1993;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The measure to which the contested decision relates is laid
down by Article 14 of the Norma Foral No 11/1993 of the
Territorio Histo´ rico de Gipuzkoa of 26 June 1993 concerning
urgent fiscal measures in support of
investment and the
promotion of economic activity, which provides for an
exemption from corporation tax for certain newly formed
undertakings.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-30/01.

Action brought on 9 February 2001 by the Territorio
Histo´ rico de Bizkaia — Diputacio´ n Foral de Bizkaia
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-32/01)

(2001/C 108/50)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Action brought on 9 February 2001 by the Territorio
Histo´ rico de Gipuzkoa — Diputacio´ n Foral de Gipuzkoa
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-31/01)

(2001/C 108/49)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 February 2001 by the Territorio
Histo´ rico de Bizkaia — Diputacio´ n Foral de Bizkaia, established
in Bizkaia (Spain), represented by Marta Morales Isasi and
Ignacio Sa´enz-Cortabarrı´a Ferna´ndez, lawyers.

(Language of the case: Spanish)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 February 2001 by the Territorio
Histo´ rico de Gipuzkoa — Diputacio´ n Foral de Gipuzkoa,
established in Gipuzkoa (Spain), represented by Marta Morales
Isasi and Ignacio Sa´enz-Cortabarrı´a Ferna´ndez, lawyers.

— annul the Commission’s decision of 28 November 2000
initiating the procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC
with regard to Article 14 of Norma Foral 5/1993;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

C 108/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.4.2001

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The measure to which the contested decision relates is laid
down by Article 14 of the Norma Foral No 5/1993 of the
Territorio Histo´ rico de Bizkaia of 24 June 1993 concerning
urgent fiscal measures in support of investment and the
promotion of economic activity, which provides for an
exemption from corporation tax for certain newly formed
undertakings.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-30/01.

Action brought on 14 February 2001 by Anna Maria
Roccato (Mrs Pinson) against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-34/01)

(2001/C 108/51)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 February 2001 by Anna Maria
Roccato (Mrs Pinson), represented by Georges Vandersanden
and Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the selection board in competition
COM/PB/99 of 8 March 2000 excluding the applicant
from the oral test in the competition;

— annul all steps taken and to be taken in the competition;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

The applicant, an official classified in grade C 1, step 8, is
challenging the refusal of the selection board in internal
competition COM/PB/99 for movement from category C to
category B to admit her to the oral test in that competition.

She points out in that regard that, by letter of 8 March 2000,
the chairman of the selection board informed the applicant
that she had not been admitted to the oral test because of her
marks in the written test, which, despite being higher than the
minimum required (30 out of 50), were not such as to place
her within the 170 best candidates, who were the only ones
permitted to take part in the oral test. In order to be included
amongst those 170 best candidates, it was necessary to obtain
a mark totalling at least 30.25.

In support of her application, the applicant pleads:

— infringement of the obligation to provide a statement of
reasons and of the general principle of transparency. The
applicant states in that connection that the principle of
transparency precludes a refusal to provide a candidate in
a competition with documents and answers relating to
matters outside the ambit of an assessment of
the
comparative merits of the candidates;

— infringement of the rules governing the work done by the
selection board, and the commission of a manifest error
of assessment in the present case;

— infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and
misuse of powers in the present case. In that regard, the
applicant, who reached the end of her career bracket on
1 February 1988, speculates that the reason for her
exclusion from the oral test may lie in the fact that the
selection board in the competition may have been biased
in favour of younger officials having, in consequence,
longer-term career prospects than she.