Case C-187/02 P: Appeal brought on 21 May 2002 against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2002 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-127/99, T-129/99 and T-148/99 (not yet published) between Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others and Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, abuse of power, action for annulment (EU), aid to industry, chemical industry, infringement of EU law, tax law

27.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 180/11

— Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission is of the view that the Portuguese Republic
has still not notified to it the plans and projects required by
Article 11 of Directive 96/59/EC. The ‘National plan for the
decontamination and/or disposal of equipment listed in the
inventories and of the PCB contained in such equipment’
forwarded by the Portuguese Government, not having been
adopted by the Government or published in the Dia´rio da
Repu´ blica (official gazette), does not appear to be binding.
Moreover,
it fails to deal with a number of questions or
restricts itself, with regard to others, to statements of intention.
Finally, it does not contain any reference to timings (timetable)
for the measures which the Portuguese authorities intend to
implement.

The Portuguese authorities have still not drawn up an inventory
of the equipment containing in excess of 5 dm3 of PCB in
accordance with Article 4(1) of Directive 96/59/EC. Thus, the
‘summary’ which the Portuguese Government claims to have
transmitted to the Commission cannot be regarded as a
summary within the meaning of Article 4.

(1) OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31.

1.

declare the present appeal admissible and consequently:

2.

3.

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
6 March 2002;

itself give final judgment in the matter on the basis of the
appellant’s pleadings at first instance and, in particular,
annul the decision of the Commission of 24 February
1999 inasmuch as the tax credit of 45 % of investment
provided for by the Norma Foral de Alava (Alava regional
Law) No 22/1994 does not constitute aid within the
meaning of Article 87 EC or, if it should be deemed so to
be, is existing aid, pursuant to Article 88 EC and Article 1
of the State aid Rules;

4.

in the alternative, to refer the case back to the Court of
First Instance for judgment, if the Court of Justice should
deem that appropriate;

5.

order the Commission to pay the costs in both sets of
proceedings.

Appeal brought on 21 May 2002 against the judgment
delivered on 6 March 2002 by the Third Chamber,
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-127/99,
T-129/99 and T-148/99 (not yet published) between
Territorio Histo´ rico de A´ lava — Diputacio´ n Foral de
A´ lava and Others and Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-187/02 P)

(2002/C 180/19)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2002
by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
T-127/99, T-129/99 and T-148/99 between Territorio His-
to´ rico de A´ lava — Diputacio´ n Foral de A´ lava and Others and
Commission of
the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
21 May 2002 by Territorio Histo´ rico de Alava — Diputacio´ n
Foral de Alava, represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and
Begon˜ a Uriarte Valiente, Abogados, of Calle Vela´zquez No 63,
Madrid.

Pleas in law and main arguments

are similar to the first two pleas in law in Case C-183/02 P (1),
together with a third plea in law:

— infringement of Community law inasmuch as there was
no finding of misuse of powers by the Commission and
no reasons were provided in that respect: the public
at large is extremely well-aware of the problems at
Community level
for harmonising tax, which would
allow undertakings and private individuals to operate in
fairer conditions. The unwillingness of a number of
Member States makes it impossible to achieve the necess-
ary level of agreement within the Council. By means of
the indirect route of State aid proceedings, in which the
Commission enjoys wide powers, that institution has
succeeded in doing away with ‘controversial’
tax
measures.

(1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.