Case T-222/01: Action brought on 20 September 2001 by SINAGA, Sociedade de Indústrias Agrícolas Açoreanas, SA against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-11-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), aid system, peripheral region, sugar industry, supply

24.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 331/27

Action brought on 21 September 2001 by ReiseBank AG
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-216/01)

(2001/C 331/44)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 September 2001 by ReiseBank
AG, Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by Rechtsan-
wälte M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the defendant’s decision of 14 August 2001
in Case COMP/E-1/37.919 — bank fees for currency
exchange in the Euro zone: Germany (Deutsche Ver-
kehrsbank v Reisebank);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant buys from and sells to the public foreign
currencies, inter alia. At the beginning of 1999 the defendant
opened an investigation into approximately 150 banks in
various Member States on suspicion that the banks had, in
anticipation of the introduction of the euro, agreed on the
structure and level of exchange fees for euro currencies during
the transitional period from 1 January 1999. That investigation
was later divided into individual procedures at national level.

In August 2000 the defendant sent the applicant its objections
to which the applicant responded.

In April and May 2001 the defendant announced that it had
abandoned the investigation into the Dutch, Belgian and some
of the German banks and justified that step by stating that
those banks had lowered their fees beforehand. In May 2001
the applicant sent
the defendant an offer to bring the
investigation to a close by amicable agreement, which was
similar to a decrease in fees proposed by another bank. The
defendant declined that offer and further attempts to bring the
investigation to a close by consent failed.

In August 2001 the applicant made an application to inspect
the defendant’s files containing information on the fees and
conditions applicable in the national investigations that were
abandoned. The defendant refused that application in the
contested decision.

In support of its claim the applicant submits that the defend-
ant’s decision caused material and irreversible damage to its
rights of defence. If it were not granted permission to carry
out a search, the defendant — as it said it intended to do —
would adopt a decision to impose a fine closing the procedure,
which would adversely affect the applicant. Furthermore the
applicant has not made submissions on the unequal treatment
it received in the context of the investigation and the decision
terminating the investigation would be adopted without the
advisory committee and the College of Commissioners being
able to take advice on that unequal treatment. Even if the
financial penalty were to be annulled in court proceedings
subsequently,
the applicant would still suffer irreversible
damage.

The applicant submits that the defendant is under a duty to
disclose to the undertakings to which the procedure relates all
documents both favourable and adverse. On the basis that
there must be equality of arms, the defendant must on no
account be able to keep to itself information that is significant
to the defence of the applicant. The documents which the
applicant has asked to see are very likely to show that the
applicant was treated unequally in comparison with other
banks concerned by the procedure to which the procedure
relates to its detriment. Finally, the request to see the docu-
ments cannot under any circumstances be refused on the
ground that they relate to commercial secrets or are internal.

Action brought on 20 September 2001 by SINAGA,
Sociedade de Indu´ strias Agrı´colas Açoreanas, SA against
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-222/01)

(2001/C 331/45)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 September 2001 by SINAGA,
Sociedade de Indu´ strias Agrı´colas Açoreanas, SA, whose
registered office is at Ponta Delgada, Açores, Rua de Lisboa,
n.o 75, represented by Dr. Ma´rio Marques Mendes Prof.
Doutora Maria Luı´sa Duarte, lawyers.

C 331/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.11.2001

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the action to be admissible;

— annul

the annex to Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1281/2001 (1)
in so far as it fixes the quantities
of sugar considered necessary to supply the Azores,
maintaining in force the preceding situation;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty (now Article 253
EC): manifestly inadequate and inconsistent statement of
reasons,

Infringement of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992: the forecast supply
balance, drawn up by the Commission, does not take account
of traditional trade flows,

Infringement of Article 227 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 299 EC): failure to take account of the
said provision when interpreting and applying legislative
provisions applicable to the outermost regions,

Infringement of Article 4(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 7(1)
EC): the Commission has exercised its executive powers in a
manifestly abusive and unlawful manner,

Breach of the principle of proportionality: the effects of the
forecast made in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1281/2000
are unfair and unreasonable.

(1) OJ L 176, 29.6.2001, p. 12.

Action brought on 24 September 2001 by Gobierno
Foral de Navarra against Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-225/01)

(2001/C 331/46)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 September 2001 by Gobierno
Foral de Navarra (Navarra Regional Government), Navarra
(Spain), represented by Marcos Araujo Boyd, lawyer.

— annul the whole of the Commission’s decision of 11 July
2001 relating to the system of State aid applied by Spain
to certain newly-created undertakings in Navarra (Spain),

— in the alternative, annul Article 3 of the decision on the

ground that repayment of the aid is unjustified,

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

is

applicant

The
challenging Commission Decision
C(2001)1762 final of 11 July 2001 in so far as it characterises
as State aid incompatible with the common market the tax
reductions under Articles 52 to 56 of the Ley Foral (Regional
Law) 24/1996 del impuesto sobre sociedades (Regional Law
on corporation tax) of 30 December 1996 (Boletı´n Oficial de
Navarra No 159 of 31 December 1996) which provide for a
reduction of 50 % on the aforementioned tax for undertakings
which take up business in the Autonomous Community of
Navarra after the entry into force of that Law, provided they
invest a minimum of ESP 100 million (EUR 601 012 ) and
create more than 10 new jobs.

According to the applicant, the contested decision wrongly
finds that the fiscal regime in question provides for aid within
the meaning of Community law, given that they do not
comply with the requirements of Article 87 of the EC Treaty:

(a)

(b)

State resources are not involved. A measure granting a
fiscal reduction does not entail a reduction in State
revenue, since that would imply that there is a homo-
geneous tax debt for which all tax payers are liable.

So far as concerns the charge that competition and trade
are affected, there are a number of reasons for the view
that the Commission has not given an adequate reason
for its finding:

— The Commission has not given the reasons on which
its decision is based. Despite having in the file full
details regarding the undertakings concerned, the
decision contains no analysis whatever either of the
competitive situation of the only two undertakings
to which the reduction has been applied and the
extent to which they are involved in intra-Com-
munity trade or even of the economic sectors in
which they operate.