Case C-276/03 P: Appeal brought on 25 June 2003 by Scott SA against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2003 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-366/00 between Scott SA, supported by the French Republic, and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-08-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, State aid, action for annulment (EU)

23.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/19

2)

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 20 July 2002.

Appeal brought on 25 June 2003 by Scott SA against
the judgment delivered on 10 April 2003 by the Fifth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in case T-366/
supported by the French
00 between Scott SA,
the European
Republic,

and the Commission of

Communities

(Case C-276/03 P)

(2003/C 200/33)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2003
by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court
the European Communities in case
Instance of
of First
T-366/00 between Scott SA,
supported by the French
Republic, and the Commission of the European Commu-
nities (1), was brought before the Court of
the
European Communities on 25 June 2003 by Scott SA,
represented by Sir
established in Saint-Cloud (France),
Jeremy Lever KCMG, QC, and G. Peretz, Barristers, and
A. Nourry and R. Griffith, Solicitors, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

Justice of

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance
of
in so far as Scott's
the Commission infringed

dismissing
Article 2 of
application alleges
Article 15 of the Regulation;

application
the Decision (2)
that

annulment

Scott's

for

— annul Article 2 of

the Decision,

it
concerns the alleged aid granted in the form of a
land price referred to in Article 1 of the
preferential
Decision; and

in so far as

— order the Commission to pay the costs of this appeal,
including the costs incurred by Scott at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of
First Instance should be set aside on the following grounds:

The Court of First Instance was wrong to apply the newly
introduced provisions of Article 15 of Regulation 659/
99 (3)as if they were governed by the old case-law relating
to the conduct of administrative procedures.

— The Court of First Instance should have recognised that
the Regulation established a Community State aid
regime that is, in important and relevant respects, new.

— It also wrongly failed to give any, or any sufficient
weight to the fact that it is the recipient of aid that
particularly
cases where
Article 15 applies.

protection

requires

in

— The Court of First Instance should not have held that
the characterisation of the recipient of aid as merely an
‘information source’
the procedure
under Article 88(2) EC supported its conclusion.

in the course of

— The Court of First

Instance wrongly failed to take
account of the wording of Articles 14 and 15 which
indicates that Article 15 is concerned with the liability
of recipients of aid.

— The Court of First Instance wrongly failed to recognise
that the consequence of its interpretation of Article 15
was to frustrate the purpose of that Article, that is to
say, to provide legal certainty to recipients of aid.

The Court of First Instance was wrong to hold that the
absence of a ‘duty’ on the part of the Commission to ‘warn’
recipients of interrupting actions was relevant to the ques-
tion of whether an action of which the recipient had no
notice could interrupt the limitation period as against it.

The Court of First
Instance was wrong to hold that
Article 15 created a single limitation period that applied in
the same way to the Member State concerned and to ‘third
parties’; alternatively,
it was wrong to hold that such a
principle operated so as to exclude the application of the
limitation rule as sought by Scott.

The Court of First
Instance was wrong to regard it as
relevant to the application of Article 15 that Scott could
have had no legitimate expectation that the aid was lawfully
granted originally; the purpose of Article 15 is to provide
legal certainty where, ex hypothesi, the aid was not lawfully
granted.

The Court of First Instance wrongly disregarded the wording
of Article 15 and failed to address an important argument
addressed to it by Scott, summarised by the Court of First
Instance at paragraph 42 of the judgment.

The Court of First Instance was wrong to treat it as relevant
that there was no limitation rule in force on the expiry of
10 years from the grant of the aid to Scott.

(1) OJ C 61, 24.02.2001, p. 16.
(2) 2002/14/EC: Commission Decision of 12 July 2000 on the state
aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA Kimberly-Clark (Text with
(notified under document number C(2000) 2183)
EEA relevance)
(OJ L 12, 15.01.2002, p. 1).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
Treaty (OJ L 83, 27.03.1999, p. 1).