Case T-362/05: Action brought on  21 September 2005  — Nuovo Agricast v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-11-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/33

— the award (i) of damages with ‘intérêts de retard’, as compen-
sation for the prejudice to the applicant's career, and (ii)
other damages in form of a legal and regular pay, notably
the application of the transitional provision contained in
Article 21 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulation in force as
of 1 May 2004 or, alternatively, the lowering of contribu-
tions to the pension scheme based on the principle of equal
pay. These rights will have to be duly evaluated at a later
stage and are now evaluated, provisionally and ex aequo et
bono, at a minimum of EUR 5 000 per year;

— order that the European Parliament shall pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official appointed after the entry into force of
the new Staff Regulations on 1 May 2004, but from a reserve
list drawn up on the basis of a competition organised before
that date, contests her appointment grade, fixed by the Parlia-
ment in accordance with the new regulations at A*5. She
invokes the same pleas and arguments invoked by the appli-
cants in Case T-58/05 (1).

(1) OJ C 93, 16/04/05, p. 38

financial damage, and must therefore be ordered to pay to the
applicant:

(a) compensation of EUR 701 692,77 by way of indemnifying
the damage consisting of failure to obtain the first part of
the aid;

(b) compensation of EUR 701 692,77 by way of indemnifying
the damage consisting of failure to obtain the second part
of the aid;

(c) compensation of EUR 701 692,77 by way of indemnifying
the damage consisting of failure to obtain the third part of
the aid;

(d) interest on those sums as revalued;

(e) EUR 1 453 387,03, or whatever greater or lesser sum may
be determined — possibly in agreement with the Commis-
sion — during the proceedings, as compensation for the
loss of income in the normal management of the under-
taking in the financial year ending 30 June 2002 compared
with the income it would have had if
the investment
programme had been completed;

(f) interest on the sum under (e) as revalued;

(g) the costs of the proceedings, including those of the party's

technical consultancy.

Action brought on 21 September 2005 — Nuovo Agricast
v Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Case T-362/05)

(2005/C 296/69)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant(s): Nuovo Agricast s.r.l. (Cerignola, Italy) (represented
by Michele Arcangelo Calabrese)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims, subject to all procedural reservations, that
the Court should declare that, by having acted unlawfully as set
out in the application, the Commission has seriously and mani-
festly infringed Community law, and has caused the applicant

The applicant in this case, as in Cases T-139/03 (1), T-151/
03 (2) and T-98/04 (3), charges the Commission with having
acted unlawfully in the preliminary investigation in respect of
State aid N 715/99, the result of which was a decision to grant
authorisation without objections. That authorisation extended,
for the six-year period 2000-2006,
the State aid scheme
referred to by Law No 488/92, which had previously in 1997
been authorised until 31 December 1999.

It is in this regard to be borne in mind that in accordance with
the special administrative procedure for the obtaining of aid
the Italian Government ought every six months to have issued
invitations to tender,
in which the undertakings concerned
might have taken part. The financial resources used to fund the
tender procedure would have been allocated to the undertak-
ings in order of classification until exhausted. Having taken
part in the third tender procedure, the applicant could not
obtain aid because the resources intended for funding of its
classification level had been exhausted.

The Italian Government, in proposing the investigation into aid
No 715/99, asked the Commission to agree, in the first tender
to the reformulation of
procedure under the new scheme,
applications submitted under the third and fourth notices to
tender. The Commission, however, restricted its authorisation
to the fourth invitation to tender.

C 296/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.11.2005

In support of its claims, the applicant argues that the Commis-
sion:

Form of order sought

— by having failed to initiate the formal investigation proce-
dure when, once it had received the Italian Government's
proposal for reformulation of the applications in respect of
the third invitation to tender under the previous scheme, it
incompatible with the common
considered that proposal
market, has infringed Article 88(2) of the Treaty and the
principle of protection of the right to a fair hearing;

— has breached the principle of legal certainty;

— has committed an error of assessment.

According to the applicant, by making the compatibility with
the common market of the proposal to allow undertakings
taking part in the third tender procedure to reformulate their
tender and by concluding, without the least discussion with the
parties concerned,
the
Commission has altered its decision to approve the 1997
scheme, which presupposed a previous investigation under
Article 87 of the Treaty.

the proposal was incompatible,

that

The applicant claims, subject to all procedural reservations, that
the Court should declare that, by having acted unlawfully as set
out in the application, the Commission has seriously and mani-
festly infringed Community law, and has caused the applicant
financial damage and must therefore be ordered to pay the
applicant compensation:

(a) of EUR 387 700,00,

revalued in accordance with the
ISTAT (Italian Central Statistical Office) indices of 26 June
2001 until the date of judgment;

(b) of EUR 387 700,00,

revalued in accordance with the
ISTAT indices of 26 June 2002 until the date of judgment;

(c) of EUR 387 700,00,

revalued in accordance with the
ISTAT indices of 26 June 2003 until the date of judgment;

(d) interest on those revalued sums,

and that the Court should order the defendant to pay the costs,
including those of the party's technical consultancy.

Furthermore, the applicant alleges that, by affecting and putting
an end to pre-existing legal situations, the defendant has in fact
revoked the authorisation decision of 1997, without observing
the procedural guarantees provided by Regulation EC No
659/99 for cases of revocation of aid.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in
Case T-362/05 Nuova Agricast v Commission.

(1) Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005, not published.
(2) Order of the Court of First

Instance of 8 June 2005, not yet

published in the ECR.

(3) Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 2005, not published.

Action brought on 26 September 2005 — Austria v
Commission

Action brought on 21 September 2005 — COFRA s.r.l. v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-368/05)

(2005/C 296/71)

Language of the case: German

(Case T-363/05)

(2005/C 296/70)

Parties

Applicant(s): Republic of Austria (represented by: H. Dossi)

Language of the case: Italian

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Parties

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

Applicant(s): COFRA s.r.l.
Michele Arcangelo Calabrese, lawyer)

(Barletta (Italy))

(represented by

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

— annul Commission Decision C(2005)2685 of 15 July 2005
excluding from Community financing certain expenditure
incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section
of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(EAGGF), and order the Commission to bear the costs of
the proceedings;