Case C-188/02 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-92/00 and T-103/00 (not yet published) between Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others and Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-08-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), Spain, State aid, action for annulment (EU), aid to industry, basis of tax assessment, business start-up, tax harmonisation

C 191/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.8.2002

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-92/00 and
T-103/00 (not yet published) between Territorio His-
to´ rico de A´ lava — Diputacio´ n Foral de A´ lava and Others
and Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-188/02 P)

(2002/C 191/27)

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-92/00 and T-103/00 between Territorio Histo´ 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.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

declare the present appeal admissible and consequently:

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 22 December
1999 inasmuch as the tax credit of 45 % of investment
and the reduction of the taxable amount provided for by
Alava regional legislation in respect of newly-established
undertakings 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;

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

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

are similar to those put forward in Case C-187/02 P.

Action brought on 27 May 2002 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-193/02)

(2002/C 191/28)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
the
Communities on 27 May 2002 by the Kingdom of
Netherlands, represented by H.G. Sevenster, acting as agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Annul Commission Decision C(2002) 970 of 12 March
to say by
2002 reducing by 31,3 %,
the assistance granted from the
EUR 147 459 365,
European Social Fund under Commission decisions
approving certain programme documents for Com-
munity structural measures in the Netherlands under
objectives 1, 2, 3 and 5b;

that

is

2. Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

implementation of

— Commission’s lack of competence: The Commission
bases the financial sanction on an (alleged) infringement
of
the obligation imposed on the Netherlands by
Article 23 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 (1) to
establish an adequate management and control system in
order to ensure the efficient
the
programmes. However, Article 24 of Regulation
No 2082/93, on which the financial sanction at issue is
based, does not refer to that obligation but merely
authorises the Commission to reduce or suspend the
assistance for the relevant operation or measure if an
irregularity occurs ‘in respect of the operation or measure’.
Thus, a financial correction, as referred to in that article,
may be applied only in the event of irregularities relating
to implementation itself or to ‘the nature or conditions
for the implementation’ of a (specific) operation or a
(specific) measure. At most the financial correction may
relate to the amounts established to have been unduly
paid; in that connection, therefore, each irregularity must
be established individually. A financial correction cannot
be based on general failings or defects in the management
and control system governing the implementation of one
or (as in this case) several operations or measures. Even if
there is a defect in a management and control system,
that does not mean that that shortcoming affects the