Case C-186/02 P: Appeal brought on 17 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, restriction on competition, tax harmonisation

10.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 191/15

Under Article 55 of the directive, the Member States were
required to comply with that directive by 13 May 2000.
Although, in the meantime, the Federal Republic of Germany
has substantially transposed the directive into national law
by means of the Strahlenschutzverordnung (Ordinance on
protection from radiation) of 20 July 2001, there are still no
provisions regulating activities carried out in connection with
the clean-up of left-over waste from earlier activities and
works, the closure and clean-up of uranium-ore extraction
facilities and plants, and the construction and operation of
radiological installations facilities and stray radiation equip-
ment under the Röntgenverordnung (Ordinance on protection
against damage from ionising radiation).

(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 17 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-186/02 P)

(2002/C 191/26)

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 17 May 2002 by
Ramondı´n SA and Ramondı´n Ca´psulas SA, represented by
Javier Lazcano-Iturburu Ayestaran, abogado, Gran Vı´a 55,
Logron˜ o (La Rioja), Spain.

The appellants claim that the Court should:

1.

2.

declare the present appeal admissible and consequently:

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
6 March 2002 and annul the decision of the European
Commission of 22 December 1999 in so far as it
declares incompatible with the common market the fiscal
measures laid down in Normas Forales (regional Laws)
No 22/94 and 24/96 applicable to the appellants, Ramon-
dı´n SA y Ramondı´n Ca´psulas SA, and requires the Spanish
State to recover them, and order the Commission to pay
the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Misuse of powers, discrimination, absence of effect on compe-
tition between undertakings and absence of effect on intra-
Community trade: Neither the Government of the Rioja in its
complaint nor the European Commission in its contested
decision have been concerned with distortion of competition
since their action against Ramondı´n was motivated by other
interests and the judgment makes an error of assessment of
the conditions governing State aid. The appellants flatly deny
the specific and selective nature of the contested aid claimed
by the Commission and found in the judgment at first instance
on the basis that the regional Law in question possesses those
characteristics, since it harms those taxable persons to whom
it does not apply where they are not located within the relevant
territorial
jurisdiction of the authority which enacted the
legislation but are based within the wider national territory
Member State. That argument cannot be accepted, since towns
or regions with legislative powers may act only within their
own territories and within the limit of their powers, just like
genuine full Member States, so that State aid proceedings are
inappropriate, the matter being one of tax harmonisation,
which clearly falls outside the Commission’s powers.

The Administracio´ n Foral (Regional Authority) had no dis-
cretion either to include or exclude Ramondı´n from the
legislation at issue, provided it fulfilled the relevant conditions.

In the alternative: if the Court should find that the measures at
issue were selective, those measures are justified by the nature
and structure of the scheme.

it specifically but not against

Ramondı´n was discriminated against when proceedings were
brought against
the other
undertakings concerned by the same Alava regional legislation,
or by similar legislation enacted by the other Basque auth-
orities, the Navarrese authorities by extension and by many
other territorial authorities in various Community countries.

No competitor has complained about the grant of alleged State
aid, nor has it lodged a complaint with any institution or
body either formally or informally against the hypothetical
advantages granted, nor have any complaints by third parties
been upheld.