Case T-62/06: Action brought on  23 February 2006  — Eurallumina v Commission
Date: 2006-02-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, action for annulment (EU), aluminium, control of State aid, excise duty, mineral oil, oxide, redemption, tax exemption

C 86/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2006

— Annul Memorandum No 13687 of 13.12.2005 concerning
payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Piedmont (No
CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 007);

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and the main arguments are the same as those
in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission (1).

— Annul Memorandum No 14013 of 19.12.2005 concerning
payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Tuscany Ob.2
(No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 001);

(1) OJ C 262 of 23.10.04, p. 55.

— Annul Memorandum No 14015 of 19.12.2005 concerning
NOP Local Enterprise Development 2000-2006 (No CCI
1999 IT 16 1DO 002) — Payments by the European
Commission which differ from the amount requested;

— Annul Memorandum No 14016 of 19.12.2005 concerning
payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Campania (No
CCI 1999 IT 16 1PO 007);

— Annul Memorandum No 14082 of 20.12.2005 concerning
payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Ob.2 Lazio
2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 009);

— Annul Memorandum No 14108 of 20.12.2005 concerning
payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Lombardy (No
CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 014);

— Annul Memorandum No 14133 of 21.12.2005 concerning
the certification and declaration of
interim costs and
request for payment. SPD Veneto ob.2 2000-2006 (No CCI
2000 IT 16 2 DO 005);

— Annul Memorandum No 14154 of 21.12.2005 concerning
payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Puglia (No CCI
1999 IT 16 1PO 009);

— Annul Memorandum No 00627 of 23.01.2006 concerning
payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Puglia (No CCI
1999 IT 16 1PO 009);

— Annul all connected and necessary measures;

Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Eurallumina v
Commission

(Case T-62/06)

(2006/C 86/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eurallumina SpA (Portoscuso, Italy) [represented by:
L. Martin Alegi, R. Denton, M. Garcia, Solicitors]

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Either:

— Annul the entirety of the contested decision; or

— order that the present exemption authorised by Council
Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December
2006 and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by
the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful
State aid, or at least not be recovered; or

— annul the entirety of the contested decision and order
that the present exemption authorised by Council Deci-
sion 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006
and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by the
Italian State should not be considered as unlawful State
aid, or at least not be recovered;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

— Either:

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/45

— Annul Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the contested decision

insofar as they pertain to Eurallumina; or

has therefore allegedly violated the applicant's rights in respect
of the principle of legitimate expectations, the principles of
legal certainty, presumption of validity, ‘lex specialis’ and ‘effet
utile’, as well as the principle of good administration.

— order that the present exemption authorised by Council
Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December
2006 and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by
the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful
State aid, or at least not be recovered; or

— annul Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the contested decision
insofar as they pertain to Eurallumina and order that
the present exemption authorised by Council Decision
2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006 and
that any sums foregone or to be foregone by the Italian
State should not be considered as unlawful State aid, or
at least not be recovered;

— In the alternative, modify Articles 5 and 6 of the contested
decision insofar as they pertain to Euralluminia to the effect
that pursuant to the present exemption until 31 December
2006, or at least until 31 December 2003, any sums fore-
gone and to be foregone by the Italian State not be recov-
ered; and

Furthermore it is submitted that in deciding that the applicant's
legitimate expectation came to an end on 2 February 2002, the
Commission failed to take the appropriate period over which
any investments were to be made and amortised relating to the
applicant's plant into account. The Commission has, therefore,
allegedly failed to state the reasons underlying the contested
decision.

(1) 2001/224/EC: Council Decision of 12 March 2001 concerning
reduced rates of excise duty and exemptions from such duty on
certain mineral oils when used for specific purposes (OJ L 84, p. 23)

Action brought on 16 February 2006 — Eyropaïki Dyna-
miki v EMCDDA

— order that the Commission pay all of the costs of the

(Case T-63/06)

proceedings.

(2006/C 86/84)

Language of the case: English

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision of the Commission of 7
December 2005 addressed to the French Republic, Ireland and
the Italian Republic relating to a series of Council Decisions
authorising exemptions from excise duty on mineral oils used
for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region
In the contested decision, the Commission
and in Sardinia.
found that the exemptions constituted State aid.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that it had
the right to expect that the present exemption, proposed by the
Commission and unanimously approved by Council Decision
2001/224/EEC (1) until the end of December 2006 is a legally
valid Community act and that any act taken by the Italian State
and the applicant to implement and rely on these measures
would not lead to an unlawful result. According to the appli-
cant, it had the right to expect that the monies foregone by the
Italian State in accordance with the exemptions legally granted
would not be recovered in any event. The Commission, by
claiming that the application of the exemptions was a State aid
recoverable from 3 February 2002 until 31 December 2003,

Parties

Applicant: Eyropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepi-
koinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece)
[represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer]

Defendant: The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and
Drug Addiction

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the European Monitoring Centre for
Drugs and Drug Addiction to evaluate the applicant's bid as
not successful and award the contract to the successful
contractor,