Case T-430/04: Action brought on 25 October 2004 by Nomura Principal Investment plc and Nomura International plc against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-02-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Czechia, European Commission, State aid, accession to the European Union, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, financial institution

5.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/25

The applicants reason that had the Council and the Commis-
sion not violated the above rules and obligations, Regulation
2320/1997 might never have been adopted and the applicants
might never have incurred the damage they incurred because
of
it. The applicants therefore seek compensation for that
damage which, in the case of the first applicant takes the form
of a restitution of duties it actually paid under Regulation
2320/1997 as well as compensation for loss of profit. The
second applicant requests compensation for the amounts he
paid under Regulation 2320/1997, loss of profit due to non-
payment of his director's salary, legal costs allegedly incurred as
well as moral prejudice damage.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997, OJ L

322 , 25.11.1997, p. 1.

(2) 2003/382/EC, Commission Decision of 8 December 1999 relating
to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/E-1/
35.860-B seamless steel tubes) (notified under document number
C(1999) 4154), OJ L 140 , 6.6.2003, p. 1.

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of
the European Community, OJ L 56 , 6.3.1996, p. 1

(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 1322/2004 of 16 July 2004 amending
Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 imposing definitive anti-dumping
duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or
non-alloy steel originating in, inter alia, Russia and Romania OJ L
246 , 20.7.2004, p. 10

Action brought on 25 October 2004 by Nomura Principal
Investment plc and Nomura International plc against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-430/04)

(2005/C 31/48)

(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 25 October 2004 by Nomura Prin-
Investment plc and Nomura International plc, London
cipal
(United Kingdom), represented by C.-D. Ehlermann, F. Louis, A.
Vallery, G. A. Gutermuth and C. Duvernoy, lawyers.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision was taken under the procedure estab-
lished by Section 3 of Annex IV of the Accession Treaty to the
European Union, for the review, by the Commission, of State
aid measures that the new Member States adopted prior to
their accession and that
their authorities notified to the
Commission before 1 May 2004. The contested decision deter-
mines that pre-accession aid measures that the Czech Republic
granted to the Czech bank Ceskoslovenska obchodni banka
(‘CSOB’) are not ‘applicable after accession’ within the meaning
of Section 3 of Annex IV of the Accession Treaty and therefore
not subject to the Commission's review for substantive confor-
mity with the EU State aid rules.

The applicant submits that this decision should be annulled on
the grounds that the Czech aid measures in question are applic-
able after accession. According to the applicant, the contested
decision violates Section 3, Annex IV of the Accession Treaty,
Article 253 EC, Article 88 EC and Regulation 659/1999 (1) by
applying an incorrect definition of ‘measures still applicable’
after accession.

The applicant further claims that in adopting the contested
decision, the Commission misused its powers in violation of
Section 3, Annex IV of the Accession Treaty and Article 88 EC
by redefining ‘measures still applicable’ to avoid review of a
measure adopted by an accession country that would have
fallen under the Commission's prior definition of this legal
concept.

The applicant also submits that the Commission erred in law in
violation of Section 3, Annex IV of the Treaty of Accession and
Article 88 EC by failing to open the formal investigative proce-
dure despite the continuing open and unresolved factual issues
and the many doubts concerning the legality of the notified
measures. It also erred in law by misapplying its own definition
for post-accession applicability of pre-accession aid measures
granted by the Czech Republic to guarantees for litigation risks
and other claims issued by the Czech National Bank to CSOB.
Finally, it erred both in law and in fact by failing to correctly
investigate the facts relating to the aid measures granted by the
Czech State to CSOB.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(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, 27.3.1999, p. 1.

— Annul the Commission's decision of 14 July 2004 in State
aid case No CZ 46/2003 - Czech Republic (Investiÿní a
poštovní banka, a.s.);

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.