Case T-116/01: Action brought on 25 May 2001 by P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-07-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, State aid, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, ferryboat

C 212/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

28.7.2001

Action brought on 14 May 2001 by Società Lavori
Impianti Metano Sicilia SpA (SLIM SICILIA) against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-105/01)

(2001/C 212/49)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 May 2001 by Società Lavori
Impianti Metano Sicilia SpA (SLIM SICILIA), represented by
Nazareno Saitta, Fabio Saitta, Mario Siragusa, Francesca Maria
Moretti and Cesare Lanciani, lawyers, against the Commission
of the European Communities.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the

applicant;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far
as it states that the applicant’s ‘declared expenditure’
before
to
ITL 23 930 772 264 instead of ITL 24 110 190 502 or
more;

amounted

March

1995

31

— order the Commission to pay costs and fees.

Pleas in law and main arguments

applicant

The
contests Decision D(2000)810575 of
12 December 2000 by which the Commission reduced the
Community funding initially granted in respect of the project
for the methanation of the city of Syracuse from ITL 11 billion
to ITL 9 572 308 905, that is to say, by ITL 1 427 691 095.
In so deciding, the Commission rejected the application for an
extension submitted by the Ministero del Bilancio e della
Programmazione Economica (Ministry of Economic Budgeting
and Planning) on the basis of an interpretation — which the
applicant does not accept — of Article 12 of Regulation
(EEC) No 4254/88 laying down provisions for implementing
Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the European
Regional Development Fund, as amended by Regulation (EEC)
No 2083/93 (1), and regarded as irrelevant the statements of
expenditure communicated after 31 March 1995.

— breach of the principle of sound administration and of
the rights of the defence in so far as, in the present case,
neither the Commission nor the Italian administrative
authorities have seen fit
to allow the applicant an
opportunity effectively to express its point of view; failure
also to respect the applicant’s rights of defence as regards
access to documents;

— Breach of the principle of sound administration, on
account of the delay in adopting the contested decision;
the applicant emphasises that the decision was taken
more than six years after the application for an extension
and four years after Community financial aid was paid
(end of December 1996/January 1997) in an amount
which implied that the request for an extension had been
granted. On the basis of that last factor, the applicant
argues that the principle of the protection of legitimate
expectations has been contravened also;

— Infringement of Article 12 of Regulation No 4258/88 in
that the contested decision — bearing in mind that it has
not been demonstrated in the present case that work on
the project had been suspended for reasons relating to
judicial proceedings — refuses to apply that provision to
a situation the facts of which have been misunderstood
and/or misinterprets that provision in deeming the situ-
ation to fall outside its scope.

(1) OJ L 193 of 31.7.1993, p. 34.

Action brought on 25 May 2001 by P&O European
Ferries (Vizcaya) S.A. against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-116/01)

(2001/C 212/50)

(Language of the case: English)

The applicant has carried out and managed the project under
licence for the Comune of Syracuse and has received the
Community funding affected by the contested decision. In
support of its claims, the applicant argues:

— breach of the obligation to state reasons;

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 May 2001 by P&O European
Ferries (Vizcaya) S.A., a company incorporated under the laws
of Spain, represented by Jeremy Lever QC and Daniel Beard,
Barristers, Jaime Folguera Crespo and Julian Ellison, Solicitor,
of Ashurst Morris Crisp, Brussels (Belgium).

28.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 212/27

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 2 of the decision of 29 November 2000 of
the Commission of the European Communities in Case
No. C32/93 declaring the aid scheme implemented by
Spain in favour of the shipping company Ferries Golfo de
Vizcaya to be incompatible with the common market;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, formerly known as Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya
S.A., was granted alleged State aid relating to a new ferry service
between Bilbao (Spain) and Portsmouth (United Kingdom),
pursuant to a letter of intent which was approved by the
Commission in June 1995. That approval decision was
subsequently annulled by the Court of First Instance (1). The
decision contested in the present case was taken by the
Commission in November 2000 following a re-examination
of the case.

The applicant alleges that the contested decision is wrong,
insofar as it concludes that the agreement was not notified in
accordance with Article 93(3) [now Article 88(3)] of the Treaty
because it was not notified by the Spanish Government. The
Commission did not raise with the applicant’s lawyers or with
the Spanish Government any question about the insufficiency
in law of communication from the prospective beneficiary’s
lawyers, rather than from the Member State concerned, as
‘information’ for the purposes of Article 93(3) of the Treaty.
Furthermore, the information provided by the applicant’s
lawyers was used by the Commission for the purposes of its
decision of June 1995.

The applicant further submits that a notified State aid that is
the subject of a favourable decision before it is granted is
irrecoverable. The beneficiary has a legitimate expectation of
which it cannot be deprived by reason of annulment of the
Commission’s favourable decision on the basis of which the
beneficiary accepted the aid. Any contrary solution would
undermine the entire scheme of State aid rules under the
Treaty and would have manifestly and gravely objectionable
consequences in practice.

Finally, the applicant does not accept that the letter of intent
gave rise to State aid to which the Treaty rules on State aid
applied or that, if there were any such aid, it was incompatible
with the common market. That question is, however, not of
practical concern to the applicant, since, in the applicant’s
submissions, no order can lawfully made for the recovery of
such aid, if any.

(1) Judgment of 28.1.1999 in Case T-14/96, BAI v Commission

[1999] ECR II-139.

Removal from the Register of Case T-163/00 (1)

(2001/C 212/51)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 28 March 2001, the President of the Chamber of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-163/00,
the European
Rosemarie Carotti v Court of Auditors of
Communities.

(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.

Removal from the Register of Case T-205/00 (1)

(2001/C 212/52)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 27 March 2001, the President of the Chamber of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-205/00,
Renco SPA against the Council of the European Union.

(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.