Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2003 in Case C-409/00: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (State Aid — Transport — Commission notice on the "de minimis" rule for State aid — Relevant market — Transport services on own account — Transport services for hire or reward — Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection)
Date: 2003-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, State aid, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, vehicle

26.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 13 February 2003

in Case C-409/00: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(State Aid — Transport — Commission notice on the ‘de
minimis’ rule for State aid — Relevant market — Transport
services on own account — Transport services for hire or
reward — Community guidelines on State aid for environ-
mental protection)

(2003/C 101/08)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-409/00, Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Mónica López-
Monís Gallego) v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: D. Triantafyllou and S. Pardo): Application for
annulment of Commission Decision of 26 July 2000 on the
aid scheme implemented by Spain for the purchase of
commercial vehicles via the Cooperation Agreement of 26 Feb-
ruary 1997 between the Ministry of Industry and Energy and
the Official Credit Institute (OJ L 212 of 7.8.2001, p. 34),
the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet
the Chamber, F. Macken and
(Rapporteur), President of
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; M.S. Alber, Advocate General;
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 13 February 2003, in which it:

1. Annuls Articles 2 and 4 of Commission Decision 2001/605/
EC of 26 July 2000 on the aid scheme implemented by Spain
for the purchase of commercial vehicles via the Cooperation
Agreement of 26 February 1997 between the Ministry of
Industry and Energy and the Official Credit Institute.

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay

the costs.

of 6 March 2003

in Case C-466/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Immigration Adjudicator): Arben Kaba v Secretary of
State for the Home Department (1)

(Free movement of workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/
68 — Social advantage — Right of the spouse of a migrant
worker to obtain leave to remain indefinitely in the territory
of a Member State)

(2003/C 101/09)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-466/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Immigration Adjudicator (United Kingdom) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
tribunal between Arben Kaba and Secretary of State for the
the general
Home Department, on the interpretation of
principles of law governing proceedings before the Court of
Justice and of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of
the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for
workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition
1968 (II), p. 475), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez
Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen
and C.W.A. Timmermans
of Chambers),
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric,
S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
Judges; D. Ruiz-
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
6 March 2003, in which it has ruled:

(Presidents

The reply which the Court, in its judgment in Case C-356/98 Kaba,
gave to the questions referred in that case for a preliminary ruling
would not have been different had the Court taken into consideration
the fact that the situation under national law of the spouse of a
migrant worker who is a national of a Member State other than the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that of
the spouse of a person who is ‘present and settled’ in the United
Kingdom are, according to the referring tribunal, comparable in all
respects except with regard to the period of prior residence which is
required for the purpose of being granted indefinite leave to remain
in the United Kingdom. In view of the fact that the situations are not
comparable under Community law, the question whether such a
difference in treatment may be justified has no relevance in this
regard.

( 1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.

(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.