Case T-328/02: Action brought on 24 October 2002 by Smit Harbour Towage Rotterdam BV against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-12-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, action for annulment (EU), harbour installation, network of navigable waterways, terms for aid, vessel

C 323/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.12.2002

According to the applicants, the contested decision further
infringes the principle of protection of legitimate expectations
and Article 14 of Regulation No 659/1999. According to the
applicants, they were entitled to rely on the legality of the aid
since it had been approved by the Commission. Recovery of
aid received would run counter to the applicants’ legitimate
expectations.

2.

In the alternative, annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Com-
mission’s contested decision in which the Commission
requires the Netherlands Government to adopt all necess-
ary measures in order to recover aid from the recipients
— with the exception of aid paid before 12 September
1990;

3. Order the Commission to pay the costs.

By altering its approach to fiscal measures for maritime
transport, the Commission, in adopting the contested decision,
also infringed the principle of legal certainty. In the applicants’
view, a change in the approach to aid measures cannot result
in already approved aid being classified as new rather than
existing aid.

The applicants are also claiming infringements of the principles
of equal treatment and proportionality and of the requirement
to provide a statement of reasons.

( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 20 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

( 2) Community guidelines on State aid for maritime transport (OJ

1997 C 205, p. 5).

Action brought on 24 October 2002 by Muller Marine
Holding BV, Muller Maritime Holding BV and Handel-
en Scheepvaartmaatschappij Multraschip BV against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-327/02)

(2002/C 323/65)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 24 October 2002 by Muller Marine Holding
BV, Muller Maritime Holding BV and Handel- en Scheepvaart-
maatschappij Multraschip BV established in Rotterdam, rep-
resented by T.R. Ottervanger, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:

1.

Primarily, annul Commission Decision C(2002) 2158 of
19 June 2002 concerning State aid by the Netherlands in
favour of the activities of Netherlands tugboats in sea
harbours and on inland waterways of the Community;

Pleas and main arguments

The pleas relied on are the same as in Case T-326/02.

Action brought on 24 October 2002 by Smit Harbour
Towage Rotterdam BV against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-328/02)

(2002/C 323/66)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 24 October 2002 by Smit Harbour Towage
Rotterdam BV, established in Rotterdam, represented by
T.R. Ottervanger, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:

1.

2.

Primarily, annul Commission Decision C(2002) 2158 of
19 June 2002 concerning State aid by the Netherlands in
favour of the activities of Netherlands tugboats in sea
harbours and on inland waterways of the Community;

In the alternative, annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Com-
mission’s contested decision in which the Commission
requires the Netherlands Government to adopt all necess-
ary measures in order to recover aid from the recipients
— with the exception of aid paid before 12 September
1990;

3. Order the Commission to pay the costs.

21.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 323/41

Pleas and main arguments

The pleas relied on are the same as in Case T-326/02.

Action brought on 24 October 2002 by Wagenborg
Sleepdienst BV against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-330/02)

(2002/C 323/68)

Action brought on 24 October 2002 by URS Nederland
BV against the Commission of the European Communities

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Case T-329/02)

(2002/C 323/67)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 24 October 2002 by URS Nederland BV,
established in Rotterdam, represented by T.R. Ottervanger,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:

1.

2.

Primarily, annul Commission Decision C(2002) 2158 of
19 June 2002 concerning State aid by the Netherlands in
favour of the activities of Netherlands tugboats in sea
harbours and on inland waterways of the Community;

In the alternative, annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Com-
mission’s contested decision in which the Commission
requires the Netherlands Government to adopt all necess-
ary measures in order to recover aid from the recipients
— with the exception of aid paid before 12 September
1990;

3. Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas and main arguments

The pleas relied on are the same as in Case T-326/02.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 24 October 2002 by Wagenborg Sleepdienst
BV, established in Rotterdam, represented by T.R. Ottervanger,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:

1.

2.

Primarily, annul Commission Decision C(2002) 2158 of
19 June 2002 concerning State aid by the Netherlands in
favour of the activities of Netherlands tugboats in sea
harbours and on inland waterways of the Community;

In the alternative, annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Com-
mission’s contested decision in which the Commission
requires the Netherlands Government to adopt all necess-
ary measures in order to recover aid from the recipients
— with the exception of aid paid before 12 September
1990;

3. Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas and main arguments

The pleas relied on are the same as in Case T-326/02.