Removal from the Register of Case T-163/00
Date: 2001-07-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Court of Auditors, European official, action for annulment (EU), promotion, rights of civil servants

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.