Case T-215/04: Action brought on 9 June 2004 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-08-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Gibraltar, State aid, United Kingdom, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, corporation tax, tax reform

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.