Case T-77/01: Action brought on 30 March 2001 by Territorio Histórico de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-06-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, State aid, action for annulment (EU), iron and steel industry, tax relief

C 173/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.2001

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the President of the European
Central Bank of 12 March 2001 rejecting the applicant’s
complaint;

— annul the defendant’s decision, at least in so far as
regards Article 43 of the Normas Forales mentioned in
Article 1(b), (c) and (d) of that decision;

— annul the defendant’s notice of termination dated 29 No-

vember 2000;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

— declare

the

that

relationship existing
between the parties has not been brought to an end by
the notice of termination dated 29 November 2000;

employment

— declare

the

that

relationship existing
between the parties has continued to exist, without being
terminated, after 31 December 2000;

employment

— order the defendant to continue, beyond 31 December
2000, to provide the applicant with employment as a
security guard in accordance with the contractually agreed
conditions of employment;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on the same facts and circumstances as in
Cases T-373/00 Tralli v ECB (OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001, p. 61),
T-27/01 Tralli v ECB (not yet published) and T-56/01 Tralli v
ECB (not yet published); the pleas in law and arguments
advanced are analogous to those put forward in those cases.

Action brought on 30 March 2001 by Territorio Histo´ rico
de Alava — Diputacio´ n Foral de Alava and Others against
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-77/01)

(2001/C 173/65)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action has been brought against Commission Decision of
31 October 2000 on Spain’s corporation tax laws (1), in so far
as it finds any aid granted by Spain under Article 43 of
Provincial Act 3/96 of 26 June 1996 on corporation tax
adopted by the Provincial Council of Vizcaya; Article 43 of
Provincial Act 7/1996 of 4 July 1996 on corporation tax
adopted by the Provincial Council of Guipu´ zcoa; and Article 43
of Provincial Act 24/1996 of 5 July 1996 on corporation tax
adopted by the Provincial Council of A´ lava, to ECSC steel
undertakings established in Spain is incompatible with the
common market in coal and steel.

Those fiscal provisions grant a 25 % reduction in respect of
investments actually made in, inter alia, the creation of branches
or permanent establishments abroad as well as the acquisition
of shares in foreign companies or the setting-up of subsidiaries
directly associated with the export of goods or services.

The contested decision was adopted following the procedure
laid down in Article 6(5) of Commission Decision
No 2496/96/ECSC (‘the Steel Aid Code’).

In support of their arguments, the applicants claim that:

— the aid is non-existent, inasmuch as the provisions in
issue are horizontal in nature and are of general appli-
cation which does not result in any advantage either at
regional level or with respect to a specific category of
undertaking. The aid is non-existent also under the ECSC
Treaty, so that the applicants allege infringement of
Article 4(c) of that Treaty, as well as misuse of powers,
on the ground that the defendant chose the ECSC Treaty
as the basis for its decision.

— the Commission has failed to state reasons, in particular
inasmuch as the contested decision amounts to a change
of assessment criterion on the part of the Commission,
which has given no reasons for it.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 March 2001 by Territorio
Histo´ rico de Alava — Diputacio´ n Foral de Alava and Others,
Spain, represented by Ramo´ n Falco´ n, lawyer.

— the Commission has failed to state reasons and committed
an error of assessment, inasmuch as the finding of aid
automatically applies to the Normas Forales by the mere
fact that they coincide, so far as their content is concerned,
with State tax legislation.

16.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 173/37

— the contested decision is arbitrary and disproportionate,
inasmuch as it does not analyse the possibility of
excluding from its scope part of the Normas Forales
which it envisages.

— the procedure laid down in the ‘Steel Aid Code’ was
infringed,
inter alia by exceeding the time-limit of
3 months prescribed in Article 6(5) of Decision
2496/96/ECSC.

(1) OJ 2001 L 76, p. 57.

Action brought on 10 April 2001 by Merck KgaA against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Case T-83/01)

(2001/C 173/66)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 April 2001 by Merck KgaA, a
company established under the laws of Germany, represented
by Dominique Dupuis Latour of BPDAGI, Paris (France).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Trade mark concerned:

Product or service:

OSTEOCALCIUM — registration
n. 0000955138.

‘Pharmaceutical; veterinary and
sanitary preparations’ (class 5 of
the Nice Agreement).

Decision

Refusal of registration of the trade
the Board of mark in question, because of its

Challenged
before
Appeal:

Grounds submitted:

alleged descriptive character.

Infringement of Article 7 (1) c)
and
(EC)
No 40/94.

of Regulation

b)

Action brought on 1 April 2001 by the Association
Contre l’Horaire d’E´ té against the European Parliament
and the Council of the European Union

(Case T-84/01)

(2001/C 173/67)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 2001 by
the Association Contre l’Horaire d’E´ té, established at Marly-le-
Roi (France), represented by Corinne Lepage and François
Steinmetz, avocats.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Directive 2000/84/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 19 January 2001 on summer-time
arrangements, published in the Official
the
European Communities on 2 February 2001.

Journal of

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case, an association formed to
draw the attention of the public to the alleged drawbacks
arising from ‘changing the clocks’, seeks annulment of Direc-
tive 2000/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 19 January 2001 on summer-time arrangements.

In support of its claims, the applicant maintains:

— that the wrong legal basis has been chosen (Article 95 of
inasmuch as the
formerly Article 100a),
the Treaty,
directive at issue does not satisfy the twofold condition
of participating in the approximation of the provisions
laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
Member States and having as its objective the establish-
ment and functioning of the internal market;

— that the directive at issue will result in drawbacks and
dangers to individuals, which should be seen as obstacles
to the proper functioning of the internal market.