Case T-343/03: Action brought on 8 October 2003 by Deutsche Post AG and Securicor Omega Express Limited against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-01-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, action for annulment (EU), postal service

C 7/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.1.2004

1. Orders the Commission to pay the applicant

the sum of
EUR 3 000, in addition to the sum of EUR 1 500 already
awarded by the Appointing Authority.

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action.

3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 21 October 2003

in Case T-392/02: Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV v Council of
the European Union (1)

(Directive 70/524/EEC — Community authorisation, linked
to the person responsible for putting into circulation, of an
additive in animal feedingstuff — Transitional rules —
Withdrawal of the authorisation — Action for annulment —
Admissibility — Conditions for withdrawal — Precautionary
principle — Principles of equal treatment, legal certainty,
sound administration and good faith)

(2004/C 7/62)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-392/02: Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV, established in
Weesp (Netherlands), represented by C. Meijer, F. Herbert and
M. L. Struys, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Balta
and M. Ruggery Laderchi), supported by Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: A. Bordes), application for the
annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1756/2002 of
23 September 2002 amending Directive 70/524/EEC concern-
ing additives in feedingstuffs as regards withdrawal of the
authorisation of an additive and amending Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 2430/1999 (OJ 2002 L 265, p. 1) — the
Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
N. J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 October 2003, in
which it:

1. Dismisses the application.

2. Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and pay those
including those incurred in the

incurred by the Council,
interlocutory proceedings.

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs, including those

incurred in the interlocutory proceedings.

(1) OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.

of 9 July 2003

in Case T-288/02 R: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) v
Commission of the European Communities

(Procedure for interim relief — Urgency — None)

(2004/C 7/63)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-288/02 R: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT),
established in Pathumthani (Thailand), represented by H. Teis-
siers du Cros, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: P.-J. Kuijper and B. Schöfer) — application for
suspension of operation of the decision of the Commission of
22 February 2002 to conclude a research contract with the
Center for Energy-Environment Research and Development —
the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
9 July 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

2.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

Costs are reserved.

Action brought on 8 October 2003 by Deutsche Post
AG and Securicor Omega Express Limited against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-343/03)

(2004/C 7/64)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 October 2003 by Deutsche Post
AG, Bonn (Germany) and Securicor Omega Express Limited,
Sutton (United Kingdom), represented by T. Lübbig, lawyer.

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.