Case T-144/04: Action brought on 13 April 2004 by Télévision Française 1 SA against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-06-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, France, State aid, action for annulment (EU), broadcasting, control of State aid, public sector, television

C 168/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.6.2004

Pleas in law and main arguments

In these proceedings, the applicant, who, on his recruitment in
October 1985, was classified in Grade A7, step 3, challenges
the decision of the appointing authority refusing to revise that
classification, placing him in Grade A6, step 2, and not in
Grade A6, step 3, refusing to reconstitute his career and
limiting the date of effect of the decision on his reclassification
to 5 October 1995.

The pleas relied on by the applicant in support of his claims
are the same as those relied on by the applicant in Case T-125/
04 Rousseaux v Commission.

specifically,
rule and of the right of access to the case-file.

it pleads infringement of the audi alteram partem

The applicant submits further that there has been a breach of
Regulation No 1430/79 (2) on the repayment or remission of
import or export duties, as well as a breach of Article 239 of
Regulation No 2913/92 (3)
the Community
Customs Code, and of Articles 905 to 909 inclusive of Regu-
lation No 2454/93 (4) laying down provisions for the imple-
mentation of Regulation No 2913/92. The applicant also
alleges breach of the obligation under Article 253 EC to state
reasons.

establishing

Action brought on 14 April 2004 by Cargill B.V. against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-142/04)

(2004/C 168/14)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 April 2004 by Cargill B.V.,
having its registered office in The Hague (Netherlands), repre-
sented by H.J. Bronkhorst and J.F. van Nouhuys.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

I. annul the decision of 5 January 2004 addressed to it by the

Commission of the European Communities;

II. order the European Commission to pay the costs of the

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant takes issue with the Commission's decision that
remission of import duties was not justified in a particular case.
That decision was adopted following annulment by the Court
of Justice of Commission Decision C/2000/485 final in Case C-
156/00 Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission. (1)

The applicant imported maize into the EC under the inward
processing arrangements. The maize was to be processed into
glucose, which in turn was re-exported. For that purpose the
applicant had the necessary authorisations for the system of
equivalent
in the
contested decision that the exported glucose was not obtained
entirely from maize but also from wheat originating on the EC
market. The Netherlands authorities thereupon recovered the
import duties owing. In the contested decision the Commission
turned down the request for remission of that debt.

compensation. The Commission states

In support of its application the applicant first submits that
there has been a breach of the rights of the defence. More

The Commission, the applicant argues, erred in finding that the
applicant was manifestly negligent in regard to meeting the
conditions governing its authorisation for inward processing.
According to the applicant,
the glucose to be exported,
produced from wheat and maize, had the same characteristics
as glucose obtained solely from maize. The applicant submits
further that both products come under one single CN code. It
claims that the only reproach which may be made against it is
that it exported the glucose in part after expiry of the six-
month period set out in the authorisation.

The applicant concludes by arguing that there has been an
infringement of the principle of proportionality.

(1) Judgment in Case C-156/00 Netherlands v Commission [2003] ECR

I-2527.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the repay-
ment or remission of import or export duties (OJ 1979 L 175, p.
1).

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-

lishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

(4) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ
1993 L 253, p. 1).

Action brought on 13 April 2004 by Télévision Française
1 SA against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-144/04)

(2004/C 168/15)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 April 2004 by Télévision Fran-
çaise 1 SA, established in Boulogne (France), represented by J.-
P. Hordies, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

26.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/9

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision C (2003) 4497 final of the Commission of
the European Communities of 10 December 2003 on State
aid implemented by France for the benefit of ‘France 2’ and
‘France 3’ from 1988 to 1994, insofar as it declares that aid
to be compatible with the common market under Article
86(2) of the Treaty;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Following a complaint made by the applicant, the Commission
decided to initiate a formal investigation procedure pursuant to
Article 88(2) EC into investment subsidies and capital grants
received by the television channels ‘France 2’ and ‘France 3’
from 1988 to 1994. By the contested decision, the Commission
decided to treat those measures as State aid within the meaning
of Article 87 EC but declared them compatible with the EC
Treaty under Article 86(2).

By its first plea, the applicant alleges that the statement of
reasons for the contested decision is erroneous and that the
decision infringes Article 86(2) EC and the provisions on State
aid. It disputes the Commission's finding that the activities of
the two channels in question are a service in the general
interest within the meaning of Article 86(2) and points out
that, although its own activities are almost identical, they are
not regarded as being in the general interest. It also calls into
question the financial assessment of
the aid made by the
Commission in the contested decision.

By its second plea, the applicant submits that the Commission
misapplied Directive 80/723 (1) when it decided that that direc-
tive did not apply to the broadcasting activities of public chan-
nels before 2000. On the same basis, the applicant alleges
misapplication of the Protocol on the system of public broad-
casting in the Member States, which is annexed to the EC
Treaty.

(1) Commission Directive 80/723/EEC of 25 June 1980 on the trans-
parency of financial relations between Member States and public
undertakings (OJ 1980 L 195, p. 35).

Action brought on 20 April 2004 by Koldo Gorostiaga
Atxalandabaso against the European Parliament

(Case T-146/04)

(2004/C 168/16)

(Language of the case: French)

European Communities on 20 April 2004 by Koldo Gorostiaga
Atxalandabaso, residing in Saint Pierre d'Irube (France), repre-
sented by Didier Rouget, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul European Parliament decision of 24 February 2004
to make deductions on the allowances owing to the appli-
cant until his alleged debt to the Parliament is paid off;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision, the European Parliament found that,
in the absence of vouchers attesting to the use of the various
parliamentary allowances, the applicant, a Member of Parlia-
ment, owed the sum of EUR 118 360.18 and proceeded to
make deductions on those allowances.

The applicant contests that decision, arguing that the Parlia-
ment infringed the Rules governing the payment of expenses
and allowances to Members, inter alia on the grounds that it
was taken by the Secretary-General of the Parliament and not
by the Bureau of the Parliament, as provided for by Article 27
of those rules. The applicant also alleges that the contested
impartiality,
decision infringes the principles of objectivity,
equality and non-discrimination and also the principle that
both parties must be heard and the rights of the defence. He
also alleges that the contested decision did not contain suffi-
cient reasons and that it is a misuse of powers, since it was
adopted to attain purely political objectives. Lastly, the appli-
cant states that there has been a manifest error of appreciation
by the Parliament.

Action brought on 23 April 2004 by Brian M. Ross against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-147/04)

(2004/C 168/17)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 April 2004 by Brian M. Ross,
residing in Morpeth (United Kingdom), represented by Eric
Boigelot, lawyer.