Case T-236/04: Action brought on 9 June 2004 by European Environmental Bureau and Stichting Natuur en Millieu against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-08-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), environmental protection, market approval, marketing standard, plant health legislation, plant health product, protected area

28.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/29

Action brought on 9 June 2004 by the United Kingdom of
the
Great

Britain
Commission of the European Communities

and Northern

Ireland

against

finally submits

The applicant
the Commission has
infringed the applicant's right to be heard in that it did not
raise certain matters upon which it has sought to base its deci-
sion during the course of the procedure under Article 88(2) EC.

that

(Case T-215/04)

(2004/C 217/51)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 June 2004 by the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by
M. Bethell, agent, assisted by D. Anderson QC and H. Davies,
Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order the Commission to pay the applicants costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant contests the Commission decision of 30 March
2004 on the aid scheme which the United Kingdom is planning
to implement with regard to the Government of Gibraltar
Corporation Tax Reform (1). In the decision, the Commission
finds that the proposed tax reform constitutes state aid incom-
patible with the common market.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
Commission's conclusions as to regional selectivity are vitiated
by material errors of fact and are wrong in law.

form part of

from the United Kingdom and that

According to the applicant, Gibraltar, which is a colony whose
the United Kingdom is obliged to develop
self-government
under the UN Charter, does not
the United
international and Com-
Kingdom as a matter of domestic,
munity law. Furthermore, the applicant states that Gibraltar is
distinct
it receives no
subsidy or financing from the United Kingdom. The applicant
also claims that the tax systems of the United Kingdom and of
Gibraltar are entirely separate and unconnected and that the
reform proposals do not constitute a tax reduction to the tax
system applicable in the United Kingdom. The Commission's
approach also infringes, according to the applicant, the prin-
ciple of equal treatment in that measures adopted by a symme-
trically devolved region are not
to be treated as state aid
whereas the same measures adopted by a asymmetrically
devolved region are.

The applicant contends that the Commission's conclusions with
respect to material selectivity are wrong in law and are insuffi-
ciently reasoned.

(1) State aid C 66/2002 — Gibraltar government corporation tax

reform.

Action brought on 9 June 2004 by European Environ-
mental Bureau and Stichting Natuur en Millieu against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-236/04)

(2004/C 217/52)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 June 2004 by European Environ-
mental Bureau, Brussels, Belguim and Stichting Natuur en
Millieu, Utrecht, The Netherlands, represented by Mr P. van den
Biesen and Mr B. Arentz, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Partially

annul Commission Decision 2004/248/EC (1)

insofar as it concerns article 2 para 3 and article 3 sub b;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-

ings;

Pleas in law and main arguments:

By the contested decision the Commission decided not
to
amended Annex I to Directive 91/414 (2) so as to include ‘Atra-
zine’ among the active substances listed there. Article 4 of
Directive 91/414 states that only plant protection products
containing substances listed in Annex I may be authorised by
Member States. By refusing to include Atrazine in Annex I the
Commission decided not to allow further use of plant protec-
tion products containing this substance.

The applicants do not challenge this aspect of the decision but
rather certain transitional provisions which allow until 30 June
to conditions aimed at minimising risk
2007 and subject
In the
certain limited uses of products containing Atrazine.
preamble to its decision the Commission justified these transi-
tional measures through the current absence of efficient alter-
natives and the need to allow time for their development.

C 217/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.8.2004

In support of their application the applicants submit that the
contested provisions violate Directive 91/414. Article 8 of this
directive provides
that Member States may continue to
authorise, for a 12-year period, substances which had already
been on the market two years after the notification of the direc-
tive. Atrazine is such a substance. However, if in the meantime
such substances have not been included in Annex I,
then
according to the applicants there is no legal basis in Directive
91/414 for allowing continued use after the expiry of the 12-
year transitional period. The applicants thus submit that by the
contested provisions the Commission created a new basis for a
continued authorisation of Atrazine, even though it had no
power to do so under Directive 91/414.

The applicants also claim that the Commission violated Direc-
tive 92/43 (3), by not
including in the contested decision
further restrictions related to the Special Areas of conservation,
more specifically the Natura 2000 network of article 3 of
Directive 92/43.

(1) OJ L 78 16.3.2004, p. 53.
(2) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market, Official Journal
L 230 , 19.8.1991, p. 1-32.

(3) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, Official Journal L
206 , 22.7.1992, p. 7-50.

Action brought on 11 June 2004 by the Italian Republic
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-239/04)

(2004/C 217/53)

acquiring undertakings
in financial difficulties, which are
subject to extraordinary administration, have at least 1 000
employees and prior to 30 April 2003 entered into a collective
agreement with the Ministry of Labour for approval of the
transfer of workers, as well as for undertakings in financial
difficulty subject to extraordinary administration having at least
1 000 employees and subject to transfer.

In support of its claims the applicant State maintains that:

— the aid at issue does not constitute a measure of a general
nature intended to promote employment and, as such, does
not distort or threaten to distort competition; accordingly,
it does not constitute State aid within the meaning of
Article 87(1)EC.

— the Commission's assessment of the compatibility of the aid
is negated by the period of validity of a measure justified by
the need to confront a temporary situation or grave crisis
in employment and limited to the period of time strictly
necessary for tackling it, in accordance with the principle of
proportionality.

— there has been an infringement of the guidelines concerning
State aid for recovery and restructuring,
in
regard to the sale of Ocean SpA to Brandt Italia, point 100
of
those guidelines expressly refers to non-notified aid,
stating that the Commission must examine the compat-
ibility with the common market of any aid in favour of
recovery and restructuring granted without the Commis-
sion's authorisation.

inasmuch as,

— the Commission has infringed its Regulation (EC) No
2204/2002 of 12 December 2002 on the application of
Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid for employ-
ment (1), inasmuch as it did not consider the aid measure at
issue to be compatible with it.

(Language of the case: Italian)

(1) OJ 2002 L 331, p. 3.

the European Commission was brought
An action against
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 11 June 2004 by the Italian Republic, represented by State
Advocate Danilo del Gaizo.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare the contested decision null and void;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

is

action

directed

This
against Commission Decision
C(2004)930 fin of 30 March 2004 relating to Proceeding No
C62/2003 (ex NN 7/2003) declaring incompatible with the
common market State aid in respect of urgent measures
in the
concerning employment
Decree-Law of 14 February 2003 converted into Law No 81 of
17 April 2003. In particular the Commission found that the
aid measure at issue confers a financial benefit on persons

to which Italy gave effect

Action brought on 9 June 2004 by European Environ-
mental Bureau and Stichting Natuur en Millieu against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-241/04)

(2004/C 217/54)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 June 2004 by by European Envir-
onmental Bureau, Brussels, Belgium and Stichting Natuur en
Milieu, Utrecht, The Netherlands, represented by Mr P. van den
Biesen and Mr B. Arentz, lawyers.