Case T-410/04: Action brought on 4 October 2004 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-01-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, EU Member State, European Commission, Italy, action for annulment (EU), aid to agriculture, budget estimate, rural development

22.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/29

Action brought on 1 October 2004 by Sumitomo
Chemical (UK) PLC against the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

European Communities on 1 October 2004 by Troy Chemical
Company BV, Maassluis, the Netherlands, represented by K.
Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers.

(Case T-403/04)

(2005/C 19/61)

(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 1 October 2004 by Sumitomo
Chemical (UK) PLC, London, (United Kingdom), represented by
K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Order the defendant to respond to the applicant's request;

— Or, in the alternative, order the annulment of the European

Commission's act D 341571(04);

— Order the defendant to compensate the applicant in the
provisional amount of 1 euro for damages suffered as a
result of the defendant's failure to comply with its obliga-
tions under Community law by failing to respond to the
applicant, or, in the alternative, as a result of the European
Commission's act D 341571(04), as well as any applicable
interests, pending the exact calculation and determination
of the exact amount;

— Order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these

— Order the defendant to respond to the applicant's request;

proceedings.

— Or, in the alternative, order the annulment of the European

Commission's act D 341571(04);

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Order the defendant to compensate the applicant in the
provisional amount of 1 euro for damages suffered as a
result of the defendant's failure to comply with its obliga-
tions under Community law by failing to respond to the
applicant, or, in the alternative, as a result of the European
Commission's act D 341571(04), as well as any applicable
interests, pending the exact calculation and determination
of the exact amount;

— Order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law invoked are similar to those invoked in Case
T-400/04, Arch Chemicals and Arch Timber Protection/
Commission.

Action brought on 1 October 2004 by Troy Chemical
Company BV against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-404/04)

(2005/C 19/62)

(Language of the case: English)

The pleas in law invoked are similar to those invoked in Case
T-400/04, Arch Chemicals and Arch Timber Protection/
Commission.

Action brought on 4 October 2004 by the Italian Republic
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-410/04)

(2005/C 19/63)

(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 4 October 2004 by the Italian
Republic, represented by Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato dello
Stato.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the contested decision void ab initio;

— in the alternative, declare the contested decision void ab
initio in so far as it reduces the Italian Republic's total allo-
cation for the years 2000 to 2006 on the basis of Decision
1999/659, as amended by Decision 2000/426;

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

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

C 19/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.1.2005

Pleas in law and main arguments:

applicant maintains that the complete absence of any legal
basis which would allow the reduction made in the contested
decision shows that, in adopting that decision, the defendant
completely disregarded the purpose of the Regulation under-
lying the measure, thereby also misusing its powers.

The contested decision in this case is Commission Decision
2004/592/EC of 23 July 2004 [C(2004) 2837 final] amending
Decision 1999/659/EC fixing an indicative allocation by
Member State of the allocations under the European Agri-
cultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund-Guarantee section for
rural development measures for the period 2000 to 2006. (1)

In the further alternative, the applicant pleads infringement of
the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of
the duty to give a statement of the reasons on which a measure
is based.

According to the applicant, the amendment contained in the
contested decision not only adapts the allocation of Com-
munity funds to the Italian Republic for 2004 in respect of the
expenditure forecasts submitted by the latter, but redetermines
the total allocation of funds for the Italian Republic, reducing
by about EUR 40 million – by setting a total allocation of
EUR 4 473.2 million – the amount available under the ‘Berlin
envelope’ (EUR 4 512.3 million).

In support of its claims, the applicant pleads infringement of
the principle of non-retroactivity. It argues that Regulation No
817/2004 (2) was adopted on 20 April 2004 and entered into
force on 7 May 2004, long after expiry of the time-limit of 30
September
laid down in Article 47(1) of Regulation No
445/2002 for the Member States to forward to the Commission
the statement of expenditure incurred in 2003 and expenditure
remaining to be disbursed by the end of that year, and the fore-
casts for 2004 and subsequent years. The Commission should
therefore have determined the budget appropriations for 2004
on the basis of the provisions of Article 49 of Regulation No
445/2002, which was still in force on 30 September 2003, and
not on the basis of Article 57 of Regulation No 817/2004.
in 2004 the Commission was not entitled to
Accordingly,
adopt the contested decision, which relies on the new imple-
menting rules of Regulation No 1257/1999 (3) as its legal basis,
or make the relevant adjustment of the initial allocations by
Member State defined in Decision 659/1999, as amended by
Decision 426/2000, provided for by Article 57, cited above.

In the alternative, even if it is held that Regulation 817/2004,
and in particular Article 57 thereof in its entirety, was correctly
applicable also to the forecasts provided by the Member States
by 30 September, under Regulation No 445/2002, the appli-
cant disputes that the Commission is authorised to revise the
allocations laid down by Decision 1999/659, as amended by
Decision 2000/426, by reducing the total allocation under the
‘Berlin envelope’ and, in any event, contends that that reduction
could not include the Italian Republic. In that connection, the
applicant alleges infringement of Article 46 of Regulation No
1257/1999 and of Article 57 of Regulation No 817/2004. The

(1) OJ L 263 of 10.8.2004, p. 24.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the Euro-
pean Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ L 153
of 30.4.2004, p. 30).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on
support
from the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ L 160 of 26.6.1999, p.
80).

for rural development

Action brought on 13 October 2004 by French Republic
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-425/04)

(2005/C 19/64)

(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 October 2004 by the French
Republic, represented by its Agents Ronny Abraham, Géraud
de Bergues and Stéphanie Ramet, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul in its entirety Commission Decision No C(2004)360
of 2 August 2004 concerning State aid paid by France to
France Télécom;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.