Case T-381/03: Action brought on 14 November 2003 by Izar Construcciones Navales SA against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-01-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, State aid, action for annulment (EU), shipbuilding

24.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 21/41

— The Commission must accept liability for the recipient
country’s fault on contractual principles, since it used the
recipient country for taking delivery. The delay is there-
fore within its sphere of responsibility. The Commission
has in principle recognised the applicant’s entitlement to
compensation.

— The basis of the applicant’s claim in respect of delay is
the wrongful declaration that the security deposited by
the applicant was forfeit. The Commission fulfilled its
obligations towards the applicant only after a year had
elapsed. Admittedly, the applicant did not have direct
contact in this regard with the Commission, but the
national payments office, the Bundesanstalt für Landwirt-
schaft und Ernährung, acted in this respect merely as the
payments office of the Commission.

Action brought on 20 November 2003 by Korn-OG
Foderstof Kompagniet against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-380/03)

(2004/C 21/84)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First
Instance on
20 November 2003 by Korn-OG Foderstof Kompagniet, of
Viby (Denmark), represented by L. Harings and K. Landry,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

order the defendant to pay to the applicant:

— 82 702,12 EUR

— 10 394,00 USD, together with interest at the rate of
5 % above the applicable Danish minimum lending
rate from 1 November 1999, or alternatively since
the lodging of the application, and

Action brought on 14 November 2003 by Izar Construc-
ciones Navales SA against Commission of the European
Communities

— 828,73 USD;

2.

order the defendant, in accordance with Article 87(2) of
the Rules of Procedure of the Court, to pay the applicant’s
costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant’s claim for compensation from the Commission
is brought under Article 238 EC and concerns a contract for
the supply of rye for breadmaking to the Russian Federation.
In addition, it makes a claim on account of delay.

The applicant’s arguments are as follows:

— It was awarded a contract for delivery of rye for bread-
making to the Russian Federation in accordance with
Regulation (EC) No 111/1999. It has suffered consider-
able damage due to the unwarranted delay in the
acceptance of the delivery by the recipient country. The
delay arose because the Russian Federation complained
initially of defects in the goods delivered. However, after
closer investigation by the Commission, no such defects
were found. The applicant had to fund the sums paid to
the Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung in
Deutschland (BLE, German Federal Institute for Agri-
culture and Food) for a period of approximately one year.

(Case T-381/03)

(2004/C 21/85)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 November 2003 by Izar
Construcciones Navales SA, whose registered office is at
Madrid, represented by Jaime Folguera Crespo, Edurne Navarro
Varona and Alfonso Gutiérrez Hernández, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul, pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty, the
decision of the Commission of 27 May 2003 on the
suspected aid granted to the Spanish State shipyards, and

— Order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by IZAR

in these proceedings.

C 21/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.1.2004

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in this case, a subsidiary of the Spanish public
holding headed by the Sociedad Estatal de Participaciones
Industriales (SEPI), which owns all the Spanish shipyards
belonging to the State, challenges the decision by which the
investigation
defendant institution has initiated the formal
procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty with regard to
three cases of alleged aid consisting in the grant by SEPI to the
civil shipyards in Cádiz and Juliana and to the Manises engines
factory of loans amounting to EUR 194.4 million, a capital
injection from SEPI to AESA (Astilleros Españoles SA) of
EUR 252.4 million and compensation for losses paid by SEPI
to the shipyards in Cádiz and Juliana and to the Manises
engines factory amounting to EUR 68.2 million. The same
decision also questions, according to the applicant, whether
certain aid authorised in 1997 in the same sector, in relation
to which the abovementioned aid ought to be considered
additional aid, is compatible with Community law.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

— Infringement of Article 88 of the EC Treaty and of
Regulations 659/1999 (1) and 1013/1997 (2), inasmuch
as the contested decision, using as its legal basis Article 16
of Regulation No 659/1999, states that, were the aid
authorised in 1997 to be considered illegal, steps must
be taken for its recovery. The applicant submits in that
respect that the Commission has unlawfully failed to
apply to the aid in issue the procedure for existing aid
provided for by Article 88(1) and Article 17 et seq of
Regulation No 659/1999.

— Breach of the principle that legitimate expectations must
be protected, inasmuch as the contested decision does
not meet
the applicant’s expectations regarding the
legality and irrevocability of the aid authorised in 1997.

— Breach of the principle of legal certainty as a result of
the Commission’s having acted out of time and the
retrospective application of a provision to a situation
arising prior to its entry into force. In the view of the
applicant, the power to recover the 1997 aid could only
have been exercised within the period prescribed therefor,
that is to say before October 1999. That is so because
exercise of the abovementioned power is contingent on
the result of the monitoring programmes provided for by
Regulation No 1013/1997 and the 1997 decision, which
came to an end on the abovementioned date.

incompatible with the common market merely because it
constitutes aid in addition to that authorised for the
Spanish shipyards by the aforementioned 1997 decision.

the applicant alleges breach of

Finally,
the principle of
proportionality and of the duty to state reasons for acts, in
particular as regards, in the present case, the existence of State
aid.

(1) 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 1999 L 83, p. 1.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 of 2 June 1997 on aid to
certain shipyards under restructuring, OJ 1997 L 148 , p. 1.

Action brought on 17 November 2003 by Izar Construc-
ciones Navales SA against Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-382/03)

(2004/C 21/86)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 November 2003 by Izar
Construcciones Navales SA, whose registered office is at
Madrid, represented by Jaime Folguera Crespo, Edurne Navarro
Varona and Alfonso Gutiérrez Hernández, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul, pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty, the
decision of the Commission of 27 July 2003 on the
suspected aid granted to the Spanish State shipyards, and

— Order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by IZAR

in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Manifest error of law, inasmuch as the contested decision
the alleged aid concerned thereby is

maintains that

The applicant in this case, the same as that in Case T-381/03
IZAR, challenges the decision of the defendant by which it: