Case T-347/03: Action brought on 9 October 2003 by Eugénio Branco, Lda, in liquidation, against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-01-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU financing, European Social Fund, Portugal, action for annulment (EU), vocational training

10.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/35

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the Decision of the Commission of the European
Communities of 27 May 2003 on State aid N 784/2002
— United Kingdom, ‘Government rural network support
funding, debt payment
funding and rolling working
capital loan to Post Office Limited’, document number
C(2003) 1652 final, in so far as it terminates the State aid
complaint procedure initiated by the first applicant’s
letter of 3 December 2002;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By letter of 3 December 2002, the applicants requested the
Commission to investigate the costs and earnings structures of
the postal undertaking Consignia plc (Royal Mail Group plc)
as regards parcels and express parcel service as to the existence
of a cross-subsidy.

The applicants object to the termination by means of the
contested decision of the State aid complaint procedure which
they initiated. In particular, the applicants complain that, by
that contested approval decision, the Commission terminated
its State aid investigation in respect of the subject of the
complaint while it was still at a preliminary stage.

The applicants take the view that if
there had been an
appropriate and comprehensive examination of the obser-
vations which the applicants submitted under the complaint
procedure, the Commission would have encountered serious
problems and doubts as to the compatibility with the common
market of the facts put forward in the complaint and would
have had to initiate a full assessment. In effect, the applicants’
complaint demonstrates in detail that the parcel service of the
United Kingdom’s Post is not achieving the coverage of costs
required under the Commission’s Decision of 19 June 2002
on measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany
for Deutsche Post AG (1) and that therefore the suspicion of a
cross-subsidy — described in the Deutsche Post Decision as
inadmissible State aid — is founded as regards parcel services.

The applicants maintain that the parcel services which form
the subject-matter of the applicants’ complaint are mentioned
in the Commission’s Decision only in passing and without
separate consideration of individual spheres of activity. The
Commission did not examine whether ‘Parcel Services’ consti-
tute the provision of a universal parcel service or, for example,
the handling of express parcels and, accordingly, an area of
competition which has long since been liberalised. In the light

of the allegations made by the applicants of cross-subsidies for
parcels and express parcel operations, the Decision is therefore
vitiated by a failure to state reasons
(infringement of
Article 253 EC).

(1) OJ L 247, p. 27.

Action brought on 9 October 2003 by Eugénio Branco,
Lda, in liquidation, against the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(Case T-347/03)

(2004/C 7/65)

(Language of the case: French)

An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 9 October 2003 against the
Commission of the European Communities by Eugénio Bran-
co, Lda, in liquidation, of Lisbon, Portugal, represented by
Bolota Belchior, lawyer.

The applicants claim that Court of First Instance should:

— annul in its entirety Commission Decision C(87) 0860 of
23 October 2002 which reduced the European Social
Fund (EFS) contribution for training actions approved
by the Commission (File 870302P3) and required the
applicant to repay the sum of EUR 13 929,7, and

— order the defendant to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant maintains that the contested reduction and
obligation to make a refund derive from the fact that the
Commission failed to approve the request for payment of the
balance under the EFS financing procedure and did not select
certain expenses submitted by it.

The applicant submitted to the Portuguese European Social
Fund Department (DAFSE) its application for EFS funding for
a vocational
training action on 29 June 1986, and the
Commission declared its application successful.

C 7/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.1.2004

the applicant submitted to the DAFSE an
Subsequently,
application for payment of the balance of PTE 991 009 by the
EFS and of the balance of PTE 810 226 by the Portuguese
State. The DAFSE certified that request, which the Commission
approved by document No 4242 of 13 March 1989, although
it considered the sum of 1 192 162 to be ineligible. On
17 February 1998 the Commission decided, however, to
suspend the contribution.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 9 July 2003 concern-
ing the restructuring aid which France plans to put into
effect in favour of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse-
Méditerranée;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

The Portuguese judicial authorities decided to discontinue the
legal actions pending against the applicant, thereby eliminating
in the applicant’s view the presumption that it had acted
irregularly. Nevertheless, the Commission adopted the decision
at issue in these proceedings.

in the applicant’s view,

The contested decision,
infringes
Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 and Council Decision 83/516/
EEC since the applicant complied strictly with the conditions
laid down for approval of the EFS contribution, thereby
acquiring ‘subjective rights attaching specifically to it’.

The decision also breaches the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations in so far as the Commission’s approval
decision vested in the applicant an entitlement to the contri-
butions and gave rise to an expectation on its part that it
would receive them if it carried out the action on the agreed
basis and also because the measure contested herein could
have been put into effect as early as 1989.

Finally, the contested decision constitutes a serious breach of
the principle of proportionality since the applicant incurred
expenses on the assumption that the Commission would fulfil
its commitments.

Action brought on 13 October 2003 by Corsica Ferries
France against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision, the Commission decided that the
restructuring aid which France was planning to put into effect
in favour of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée
was, under certain conditions, compatible with the common
market. The applicant challenges that decision, asserting that it
has a direct and individual interest in obtaining its annulment,
having regard to its active participation in the formal investi-
gation procedure in respect of the aid and its competitive
position in the reference market.

In support of its action it relies, first, on alleged failure to state
the reasons on which the contested decision is based and,
secondly, on alleged manifest errors of fact and assessment.

Action brought on 13 October 2003 by Wirtschafts-
kammer Kärnten and best connect Ampere Strompool
GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-350/03)

(2004/C 7/67)

(Language of the case: German)

(Case T-349/03)

(2004/C 7/66)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 October 2003 by Wirtschafts-
kammer Kärnten and best connect Ampere Strompool GmbH,
Klagenfurt (Austria), represented by M. Angerer, lawyer.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 October 2003 by Corsica
Ferries France, established in Bastia (France), represented by
S. Rodrigues and C. Scapel, lawyers, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision COMP/M.2947 — Verbund/
EnergieAllianz of 11 June 2003 on the compatibility of a
concentration with the common market and the Agree-
ment on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement)
and order the defendant to pay the costs.