Action brought on 6 December 2001 by SIC — Sociedade Independente de Comunicação S.A. against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-298/01)
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, action for failure to act, competition law, firm governed by commercial law, television

C 84/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.2002

In the absence of any reply from the Commission,
the
applicant, by letter of 26 July 2001, called upon it to take
action in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 232.

complaints of 22 October 1996 and 20 June 1997 lodged
by the applicant;

3.

order the Commission to pay all the costs.

After the expiry of the period of two months prescribed by the
Treaty, the Commission had not initiated the procedure nor
responded to the call to take action.

In early November 2001, after the abovementioned two-
month period had expired, the applicant received a letter from
the Commission informing it that the internal preparatory
work for compliance with the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of May 2000 was almost complete.

The applicant takes the view that that letter is a merely
provisional step which does not define the position of the
defendant institution.

Action brought on 6 December 2001 by SIC — Sociedade
Independente de Comunicaça˜o S.A. against Commission
of the European Communities

(Case T-298/01)

(2002/C 84/111)

(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 6 December 2001 by SIC —
Sociedade Independente de Comunicaça˜o S.A., whose regis-
tered office is at Carnaxide, Linda-a-Velha (Portugal), represent-
ed by Carlos Botelho Moniz, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

2.

find the action admissible;

accordingly,
in view of the duty incumbent on the
Commission under Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty as
regards the preliminary assessment of State aid measures
brought to its attention, as well as of the general principles
of law to which it is subject, in particular the principles
of legality, good administration and care, declare that the
Commission failed, contrary to Articles 87 and 88 of the
Treaty and the abovementioned general principles of law,
in its duty to adopt a decision regarding the request for
the procedure under Article 88(2) to be initiated in
respect of the measures which were the subject of the

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a commercial company whose sole object is
the pursuit of television broadcasting activities.

On 22 October 1996, the applicant lodged with Directorate
General for Competition — DG IV of the Commission —
a complaint against the Portuguese Republic and RTP —
Radiotelevisa˜o Portuguesa, alleging breach of Community rules
on competition, in particular of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC
Treaty.

The complaint concerned a number of measures adopted by
the Portuguese Government in favour of RTP, a public operator
holding the public service television concession, taking the
view that such measure constituted State aid within the
meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty and that such aid had
been granted contrary to Article 88(3) of the Treaty.

The complaint related, in particular, to compensatory pay-
ments made in 1994, 1995 and 1996 by the Portuguese
Republic to RTP.

The payments for 1994 and 1995 were the subject of a
Commission decision of 7 November 1996, against which an
action for annulment was brought.

The failure to act which constitutes the subject-matter of the
present action relates to the compensatory payment for 1996.

Such a measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of
Article 87 of the EC Treaty, since it was implemented by the
Portuguese State contrary to Article 88(3) without previously
notifying the Commission.

The measure was brought to the attention of the Commission
by means of the complaint of 22 October 1996, that is to say,
more than 5 years ago, no decision having been taken by that
Community institution with regard to the 1996 compensatory
payment until the end of November 2001.

On 20 June 1997 the applicant lodged with Directorate
General for Competition — DG IV of the Commission — a
fresh complaint against the Portuguese Republic and RTP
alleging breach of Community rules on competition,
in
particular of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty.

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/61

In view of the inactivity of the Community institution, the
applicant, by letter of 26 July 2001, received by the Com-
mission on 30 July 2001, more than 53 months after
the complaint was lodged, called on the Commission,
in
accordance with Article 232 of the EC Treaty, to adopt a
position on the complaint and initiate the procedure under
Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission replied, after the two-month time-limit
prescribed by Article 232, in a letter of 24 October 2001, in
which it does not define its position, but merely states that it
is completing the internal preparatory work with regard to the
complaints.

It was stated in the application that the Community Ship-
owners should hold 60 % of the shares of the joint enterprise,
while the partner in the relevant third Country, Namibia,
should hold 40 % of the shares. After the withdrawal of the
project of
the Spanish company E. Vieira S.A. and the
replacement of two of the four vessels involved with two other
vessels, the applicant and the Namibian partner concluded an
agreement, according to which the applicant owned 28,51 %
of the share capital, but only 13,68 % of the voting rights.
Finally, with effect from 1 May 1995, the applicant transferred
part of its shareholding in the joint entreprise to the Namibian
partner under an agreement providing that the applicant’s
the share capital.
shareholding was reduced to 1 % of
According to the contested Decision, the basis for providing
financial aid has ceased to exist because of this reduction to
1 % of the applicant’s shareholding in the joint undertaking,
which is not be considered sufficient for a joint enterprise, as
defined by Community Regulations.

Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Norway Sea-
foods Denmark A/S against the Commission of the
European Communities

The contested Decision infringes Article 44(1) of the above
mentioned Council Regulation (EEC) No. 4028/86.

(Case T-319/01)

(2002/C 84/112)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 December 2001 by Norway
Seafoods Denmark A/S, represented by Mr Jacob Ørndrup of
Gorrissen Federspiel Kierkegaard, Copenhagen (Denmark).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision K(2001)3079 of 16 October

2001

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

financial aid pursuant

The present application has been lodged against Commission
Decision K(2001)3079 of 16 October 2001, regarding the
reduction and repayment of financial aid to Foodmark A/S
under Commission Decision K(93)1823 of 5 July 1993, as
amended by Decision K(94)119 of 27 January 1994, for
Project SM/DNK/02/93, the object of which was an application
for
to Council Regulation (EEC)
No. 4028/88 of 18 December 1986, on Community measures
to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquacul-
ture
sector as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No. 3944/90 of 20 December 1990 (1). The applicant’s name
at the time of this application was Foodmark A/S; this name
was later changed to Foodmark Holding A/S and later still to
Norway Seafoods Denmark A/S.

— The reduction of the applicant’s shareholding in the joint
enterprise to 1 % did not mean that a joint enterprise
within the meaning of the Regulation no longer existed.

— The applicant had a legitimate expectation that

the
reduction of the Applicant’s shareholding in the joint
enterprise to 1 % would not result in any demand for
repayment of aid from the Commission.

(1) OJ L 380 of 31.12.1990, p. 1.

Action brought on 19 December 2001 by Mercedes
Alvarez Moreno against Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-323/01)

(2002/C 84/113)

(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 19 December 2001 by Mercedes
Alvarez Moreno, residing in Berlin, represented by Georges
Vandersanden and Laura Levi, avocats.