Case T-304/04: Action brought on 22 July 2004 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-10-09
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, action for annulment (EU), competition law, control of State aid, industrial equipment, interest rate subsidy

9.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/27

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul that part of the challenged decision in which the
subsidies for public service obligations paid to Caremar,
Toremar, Siremar and Saremar are regarded as State aid;

— in the alternative, annul that part of the challenged decision
in which the subsidies for public service obligations paid to
Caremar, Toremar, Siremar and Saremar are classified as
new aid, and not as existing aid;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied
on in Case T-265/04 Adriatica di Navigazione and Others v
Commission (1).

(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.

Action brought on 22 July 2004 by Centro Provincial de
Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén against Council of the Euro-
pean Union

(Case T-295/04)

(2004/C 251/49)

mere fact, suffer serious economic harm and thus be discrimi-
nated against.

Finally, the applicant alleges misuse of powers.

Action brought on 22 July 2004 by Cristóbal Gallego
Martínez, Benito García Burgos and Antonio Parras Rosa
against Council of the European Union

(Case T-297/04)

(2004/C 251/50)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 22 July 2004 by Cristóbal Gallego Martínez,
Benito García Burgos and Antonio Parras Rosa, residing in Jaen
(Spain), represented by José Francisco Vázquez Medina, of the
Jaen Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul ipso jure Article 1(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No

864/04

— reserve its decision on costs.

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Pleas in law and main arguments

An action against Council of the European Union was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 22 July 2004 by Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores
de Jaén, established in Jaen (Spain), represented by José Fran-
cisco Vázquez Medina, of the Jaen Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul ipso jure Article 1(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No

864/04

— reserve its decision on costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant
is contesting the abovementioned provision
insofar as it includes, exclusively in respect of olive oil, the
1999/2000 marketing year together with the other 3 planned
for the remaining agricultural sectors (2000/2001, 2001/2002
and 2002/2003), for the determination of the direct support to
be provided for producers.

In support of its claims, the applicant maintains that not only
is there an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested
provision, contrary to the duty to provide reasons,
it also
discriminates against certain regions and many farmers in view
of the fact that in the 1999/2000 marketing year the harvest
was very poor in Andalusia, particularly in Jaen. Thus, by calcu-
lating the assistance to be provided by taking into account the
aforementioned marketing year, olive oil producers in Jaen,
together with others in Cordoba and Granada, will, by that

The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with those
put forward in Case T-295/04.

Action brought on 22 July 2004 by the Italian Republic
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-304/04)

(2004/C 251/51)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 July 2004 by the Italian
Republic,
represented by Antonio Cingolo, avvocato dello
Stato.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2004) 1812 final of 19 May
2004 declaring unlawful aid granted by Italy (under Law
No 394 of 1981) in the form of interest relief to WAM
SpA of EUR 103 313.20 from 24 April 1996 and
EUR 106 366.60 from 9 November 2000 (State aid No C
4/2003/(ex NN 102/2002), with order for recovery;

C 251/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.10.2004

— annul any other connected or conditional measure which
the European

may exist and order the Commission of
Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Italian Republic has challenged before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities Commission Decision
C(2004) 1812 final of 19 May 2004 declaring unlawful aid
granted by Italy (under Law No 394 of 1981) in the form of
interest relief to WAM SpA of EUR 103 313.20 from 24 April
1996 and EUR 106 366.60 from 9 November 2000 (State aid
No C 4/2003/(ex NN 102/2002), with order for recovery. Law
No 394 of 1981 supports, inter alia, Italian companies wishing
to set up a subsidiary, representative offices, shops and ware-
houses.

In support of its claim, the Italian Republic has pleaded:

(A) Infringement of

as
essential procedural
regards the right of defence, the principle of transparency
and the principle of
to be heard, since the
Commission has never sent Italy a copy of the complaint
in the proceedings.

requirements

the right

(B) Infringement of

for

requirements

as
essential procedural
regards the right of defence and failure adequately to state
reasons
the
lack of preliminary inquiries,
Commission failed to carry out the necessary investigations
into the complaint and the subsequent measures using the
powers granted to it under procedural Regulation No
659/1999 (1).

since

(C) Error by the Commission in classifying the facts and infrin-
gement of Article 1(b) of Regulations No 69/2001 (2) and
70/2001 (3) since it classified the aid in question as ‘export
aid’.

(D) Infringement of the principles of the protection of legiti-
mate expectations and good faith, since the Commission

contested the failure to communicate the aid, even though
it was aware of Law No 394/81. On the contrary, the aim
of
the aid in question is not directly export-related,
although its principal aim is internationalisation through
the creation of fixed production bases abroad.

(E) Infringement of Article 87 et seq of the EC Treaty and
failure adequately to state reasons. It is claimed that in the
contested decision the Commission never explains why
and to what extent aid such as that in question, which is
individual and for a very low amount, is capable of having
an effect on trade between Member States. Nor does the
defendant explain on what evidence it bases its claim of
the risk of distortion of competition within the Com-
munity, above all with respect to aid which is very limited
in amount.

(F) Infringement of Article 4 of Regulation No 69/2001 and
failure adequately to state reasons, since the Commission
applied that provision retroactively to circumstances
governed by the rules previously in force.

(G) Failure adequately to state reasons, illogicality, infringement
of the principle of fairness and wrongful application of
Regulation No 69/2001 and Regulation No 70/2001, since
the Commission adjusted the amount of the aid to be
returned according to criteria which should be regarded as
irrelevant and erroneous.

(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 L 83 of 27.03.1999, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on
the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis
aid (OJ L 10, 13.01.2001, p. 30).

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on
the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid
to small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 10, 13.01.2001, p. 30).