Case T-270/01: Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Confederación Empresarial Vasca against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-01-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, State aid, action for annulment (EU), aid to undertakings, tax relief

5.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 3/43

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2001) 1763
final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the common
market the tax reductions under Article 26 of Norma Foral
(Regional Law) No 3/1996 of 26 June 1996 on corporation
tax, which provides for a reduction of 99 %, 75 %, 50 % and
25 % of the taxable basis for the aforementioned tax applicable
during the first four tax years for undertakings which set up
business in the Territorio Histo´ rico de Vizcaya with effect from
the entry into force of the Law, provided that they have
disbursed capital amounting to more than PTA 20 million
(EUR 120 202),
than PTA 80 million
(EUR 430 810) and create more than 10 new jobs.

invest more

The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicant are identical with those put
forward in Case
T-225/01.

The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2001) 1761
final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the common
market the tax reductions under Article 26 of Norma Foral
(Regional Law) No 7/1996 of 4 July 1996 on corporation tax
(Boletı´n Oficial del Territorio Histo´rico de Guipu´zcoa of 10 July
1996), which provides for a reduction of 99 %, 75 %, 50 %
and 25 % of the taxable basis for the aforementioned tax
applicable during the first four tax years for undertakings
which set up business in the Territorio Histo´ rico de Guipu´ zcoa
with effect from the entry into force of the Law, provided
that they have disbursed capital amounting to more than
PTA 20 million (EUR 120 202),
than
PTA 80 million (EUR 430 810) and create more than 10 new
jobs.

invest more

The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicant are identical with those put
forward in Case
T-225/01.

Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Confederacio´ n
Empresarial Vasca against Commission of the European
Communities

Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Confederacio´ n
Empresarial Vasca against Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-269/01)

(2002/C 3/74)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(Case T-270/01)

(2002/C 3/75)

(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 22 October 2001 by Confedera-
cio´ n Empresarial Vasca, whose registered office is at Bilbao
(Spain), represented by Marcos Araujo Boyd, lawyer.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 October 2001 by the Confeder-
acio´ n Empresarial Vasca, whose registered office is in Bilbao
(Spain), represented by Marcos Araujo Boyd, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 11 July 2001 on the
system of State aid applied by Spain to certain newly
created undertakings in Guipu´ zcoa (Spain);

— in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4 of the defendant’s
decision of 11 July 2001 on the system of State aid
applied by Spain to certain newly created undertakings in
Guipu´ zcoa, inasmuch as the obligation to recover the
amounts not levied by the regional revenue authorities of
Guipu´ zcoa pursuant to the disputed tax legislation is
unjustified;

— annul the defendant’s decision of 11 July 2001 regarding
State aid granted by Spain to undertakings in Guipu´ zcoa
in the shape of a tax credit of 45 % of the amount
invested;

— in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4 of the defendant’s
decision of 11 July 2001 regarding State aid granted by
Spain to undertakings in Guipu´ zcoa in the shape of a tax
credit of 45 % of the amount invested inasmuch as the
obligation to recover the amounts not levied by the
regional revenue authorities of Guipu´ zcoa is unjustified;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

C 3/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.1.2002

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2001) 1764
final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the common
market the tax reductions arising from the tenth addendum to
Norma Foral (Regional Law) No 7/1997 of 22 December
1997, which provides for a tax credit of 45 % of the investment
in new fixed material assets in excess of PTA 2 500 million
(EUR 15 025 303) made by undertakings in the Territorio
Histo´ rico de Guipu´ zcoa.

— order the defendant to pay damages in the form of default
interest on the percentage of tax abatement and the
percentage of the expatriation allowance, at the rate of
6,75 % per annum from November 2000 until such time
as the amounts due are fully paid;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicant are identical with those put
forward in Case
T-225/01.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 23 October 2001 by José Manuel
Lo´ pez Cejudo against Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-271/01)

(2002/C 3/76)

(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 23 October 2001 by José Manuel
Lo´ pez Cejudo, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision contained in the applicant’s salary
statement for October 2000, refusing him entitlement to
dependent child and education allowances in respect of
his four children and, consequently, to take into account
such family allowances for purposes of tax abatement
and expatriation allowance since July 1999, including in
respect of the period October 2000 to September 2001,
and, in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 16 July
2001 taken as a result of the complaint;

— order the defendant to pay damages in the form of default
interest on the amounts improperly withheld by the
defendant pursuant to the salary statement for October
2000, at the rate of 6,75 % per annum from November
2000 until such time as full payment is effected;

Until the adoption of the contested decision, the applicant was
in receipt of dependent child and education allowances in
respect of his four children. Those allowances were paid in his
name and on his behalf to his wife, an official of the European
Parliament whom he is in the process of divorcing. Custody of
the children has been awarded to his wife, who receives
alimony payments from him.

In October 2000, the applicant learned from his monthly
salary statement that the Commission refused to grant him
dependent child and education allowances in respect of his
four children and, consequently, to take into account such
family allowances for purposes of tax abatement and expatri-
ation allowance as from July 1999.

As a result of the complaint lodged in July 2001 by the
applicant against that decision, the Commission acknowledged
that he shared in the actual maintenance of the children and,
accordingly, decided to grant him, as from August 2001,
dependent child and education allowances, with full effects
with regard to tax abatement and expatriation allowances, to
in accordance with an allocation
be shared with his wife,
formula which the defendant has to agree with the European
Parliament. Accordingly, entitlement to the allowances in issue
was not granted to the applicant for the period from October
2000 to July 2001.

The applicant takes the view that the contested decision:

— infringes the principle of

legality,

inasmuch as the
Commission itself acknowledged that the arguments put
forward by the applicant challenging his salary statement
for October 2000 were well founded, but only made a
decision regarding the future;

— infringes the principle that reasons for decisions must be
stated, inasmuch as the Commission does not explain the
reason why it limited the effects of its positive decision;