Case T-179/05: Action brought on 6 May 2005 by Stradeblu s.r.l. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-06-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, maritime transport, service, transport company

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/31

The applicant claims that the Court should:

the decision challenged, given the express terms of the
national allocation plan;

— join this application with the application lodged by the
United Kingdom on 11 April 2005 pursuant to Article 230
EC seeking annulment of
the
amended NAP contained in the Commissions's letter of 1
February 2005;

to consider

the refusal

— the Commission was obliged to consider the United King-
dom's amendments to the national allocation plan as soon
as possible in order to enable the United Kingdom to
comply with its obligations under the Directive;

— annul Commission Decision C(2005) 1081 final dated 12
April 2005 concerning the proposed amendment to the
national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas
emission allowances notified by the United Kingdom in
accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of
the European
Parliament and of the Council; and

— the Commission's Decision C(2004)2515/4 final cannot
prevent or restrict the consideration of the comments of
the public required by point 9 of Annex III and Article
11(1) of the Directive, and a Member State must remain
free to propose any amendments necessary,
following
public consultation;

— order the Commission to pay the United Kingdom's costs of

this action.

— Article 3 of

the Commission's Decision C(2004)2515/4
final permits the United Kingdom to notify any amendment
to the Commission, including amendments resulting in an
increase to the quantity of allowances allocated.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) OJ L 275 of 25 October 2003, p. 32.

On 30 April 2004, the United Kingdom notified a provisional
national allocation plan to the Commission pursuant to Direc-
the
tive 2003/87/EC of
Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for green-
house gas emission allowance trading within the Community
and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1).

the European Parliament and of

On 7 July 2004,
the Commission adopted Decision
C(2004)2515/4 final concerning the United Kingdom's national
allocation plan under Article 9(3) of the Directive.

Following the completion of the activities identified in the
provisional national allocation plan, the United Kingdom noti-
fied the Commission on 10 November 2004 that it wished to
amend the provisional national allocation plan to take account
of the results of this work.

By the challenged decision, the Commission found that the
proposed amendment to the national allocation plan notified
by the United Kingdom to the Commission on 10 November
2004 and last up-dated on 18 February 2005 implying an
increase of
the emission allowance allocations by 19.8 Mt
CO2eq was inadmissible.

The United Kingdom submits that this finding of inadmissibility
is wrong as a matter of law and should be annulled.

The United Kingdom contends that the challenged decision is
wrong as a matter of law on the following grounds:

— the Commission was not entitled to treat the United King-
dom's provisional national allocation plan as definitive in

Action brought on 6 May 2005 by Stradeblu s.r.l. against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-179/05)

(2005/C 155/59)

(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 6 May 2005 by Stradeblu s.r.l.
established in Cagliari, represented by Alberto M. Rossi, lawyer,
for annulment of Decision 2005/163/EC of 16 March 2004 on
the State aid paid by Italy to the Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar,
Saremar and Toremar shipping companies (Tirrenia Group),
and particularly Article 1 thereof, which provides that ‘without
prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 2, the aid granted by Italy to
Adriatica as of 1 January 1992 as compensation for providing a
public service is compatible with the common market having regard to
Article 86(2) of the Treaty’.

C 155/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.6.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul

the contested decision, and particularly Article 1
thereof, in so far as it authorises the aid granted to Adriatica
(as it then was, now called Tirrenia di Navigazione S.p.A) in
respect of the Genoa (Voltri) to Palermo (Termini Imprese)
route;

2. order repayment of the aid unlawfully received by Adriatica
(and, as from 26 July 2004, by Tirrenia di Navigazione
S.p.A.) in respect of the transport services rendered on the
Genoa (Voltri) to Palermo (Termini Imprese) route;

3. order the Commission to pay the costs.

— declares that the Voltri/Termini Imprese route, served by
Adriatica in competition with other private undertakings,
can be subsidised in that ‘…these operators' supply cannot
be regarded as comparable to Adriatica's in terms of regu-
larity, frequency and type of ship stipulated by the Italian
authorities in the public service agreement’ (paragraph 103
of the decision).

In short, the applicant alleges a failure to state reasons and/or
inconsistency in the statement of
the
contested decision and an infringement of Regulation No
3577/92 (2).

reasons given for

(1) Commission Decision 2005/163/EC of 16 March 2004 on the State
aid paid by Italy to the Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and
Toremar shipping companies (Tirrenia Group) (notified under docu-
ment number C(2004) 470) (OJ 2005 L 53, p. 29).

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992
applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L
364, p. 7).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present proceedings have been instituted against the deci-
sion of the Commission in respect of the State aid paid by Italy
to the Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar ship-
ping companies (Tirrenia Group) (1) and particularly Article 1
thereof, which provides that ‘without prejudice to the provisions of
paragraph 2, the aid granted by Italy to Adriatica as of 1 January
1992 as compensation for providing a public service is compatible
with the common market having regard to Article 86(2) of
the
Treaty’.

the

decision

between

contested

In support of its claims, the applicant points to the inconsis-
tency
and Decision
2001/851/EC of 21 June 2001 on the aid paid by Italy to
Tirrenia di Navigazione S.p.A. In that decision, the defendant
took account of the obligation undertaken by the Italian autho-
rities to eliminate the services provided by Tirrenia on the
Genoa (Voltri) to Palermo (Termini Imprese) route, for a further
five-year period, with the effect that that route was no longer
taken into account
in calculating the compensation for
providing a public service. It is also stated in that decision that
on the route in question the services provided by the private
operator satisfy the requirements of public service laid down by
the agreements entered into with the State, in terms of their
capacity and frequency.

Action brought on 3 May 2005 by the Italian Republic
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-185/05)

(2005/C 155/60)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 May 2005 by the Italian Republic,
represented by Maurizio Fiorilli, Avvocato dello Stato.

In the contested decision, by contrast, the Commission:

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— adopts no measure against the Italian authorities for failing
to comply with the obligation formally undertaken in the
presence of the defendant to eliminate the service on the
route;

— annul the DG ADMIN decision on the use of languages
(publications under Article 29(2) — EUR-25 posts) adopted
at the 1678th Administrative and Budget Meeting of 10
November 2004;