Case T-152/06: Action brought on  6 June 2006  — NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket v Commission
Date: 2006-07-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, action for annulment (EU), complaint to the Commission, control of State aid, tourism

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/37

Third, the applicant invokes a breach of the Basic Regulation as
regards the deduction of an agent's commission, and in particu-
lar Article 2(10)(i) of the Basic Regulation as last modified by
Regulation No 2238/2000 (3). According to the applicant,
Article 2(10)(i), as modified by Regulation No 1972/2002 (4), is
not applicable since the refund procedure at hand would
concern the continuation of the original procedure. In the alter-
native, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed
Article 2(10)(i) of the Basic Regulation as modified by Regu-
lation No 1972/2002.

— annul the contested decision;

— order

the Commission to open a formal

investigation

procedure under Article 88(2) EC;

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the

applicant.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2229/2003 of 22 December 2003
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively
the provisional duty imposed on imports of silicon originating
Russia (OJ L 339, p. 3).

(2) 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, p. 1).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 2238/2000 of 9 October 2000
amending Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against
dumped imports from countries not members of the European
Community (OJ L 257, p. 2).

(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 1972/2002 of 5 November 2002
amending Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on the protection against
dumped imports from countries not members of the European
Community (OJ L 305, p. 1).

Action brought on 6 June 2006 — NDSHT Nya Destina-
tion Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket v Commission

(Case T-152/06)

(2006/C 178/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teater-
paket AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: M. Merola and
L. Armati, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Declare the action admissible;

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision of the Commission not to
pursue its investigation of the applicant's complaint relating to
three kinds of subsidies to Stockholm Visitors Board AB (‘SVB’),
namely: the yearly appropriations from the City of Stockholm's
budget in favour of SVB, the reimbursement on a regular basis
of SVB's pre-tax losses by its parent company and the preferen-
tial access to public assets for the provision of services included
in the Stockholm Card. The Commission found that
the
measures did not constitute unlawful aid.

The applicant submits that, by adopting the contested decision,
the Commission has infringed several provisions in the Treaty
and Regulation No 659/1999 (1).

The applicant invokes, first, that, by not opening the formal
investigation procedure,
the Commission infringed Article
88(3) EC as well as Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999.
According to the applicant, the Commission was aware of the
existence of aid and did not have sufficient elements to estab-
lish that all measures at stake qualified as existing aid.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission misapplied
Articles 87 and 86(2) EC insofar as it stated that the compensa-
tion for carrying out
information activities fell
within the rules on services of general economic interest.

the tourist

Third, the applicant submits that the Commission misapplied
Articles 87 and 88 EC, as well as Article 1(b) of Regulation No
659/1999, in stating that, if the compensation for tourist infor-
it constituted
mation activities was to be considered as aid,
existing aid and not unlawful aid, and in any case was compa-
tible with the common market.

Fourth, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in the
application of Article 87(1) and 88(3) EC in establishing that
SVB's commercial activities were carried out under market
conditions and were, therefore, not financed from state aid. The
applicant submits in particular that the Commission failed to
take a position in relation to the reimbursement of SVB's losses
by its parent company, wholly owned by the City Council.

C 178/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.7.2006

Finally, the applicant invokes an infringement of the duty to
state reasons, as well as an infringement of the general prin-
ciple of sound administration in that the duration of the preli-
minary investigation would have been excessive.

parallel trade. The contested decision informs the complainant
that the Greek Competition Authority is dealing with the case
and rejects the complaints pursuant to Article 13 of Council
Regulation No 1/2003 (1).

(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, p. 1).

Action brought on 13 June 2006 — European Association
of Euro-Pharmaceutical Companies v Commission

(Case T-153/06)

(2006/C 178/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
Commission has infringed the obligation to give a sufficient
statement of reasons. According to the applicant, a mere refer-
ence to the wording of Article 13 of Regulation No 1/2003 is
not sufficient to allow the complainant to assess whether the
Commission has taken into account all facts and circumstances
and the judiciary to exercise its power of review.

The applicant furthermore submits that the Commission has
infringed Article 211 and 85 EC and Regulation No 1/2003 by
not taking back the responsibility of a case from the Greek
Competition Authority under Article 11(6) of Regulation
1/2003. According to the applicant, the Commission failed to
take into account that the national procedure takes too long to
achieve a sufficient result, that the complaints raised new and
fundamental questions of EC competition law and addressed
problems that exist in more than one Member State, and that
the Commission has to assure the efficient enforcement of EC
competition law.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the
implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles
81 and 82 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 1, p. 1).

European Association

Euro-Pharmaceutical
Applicant:
Companies (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: W. Rehmann,
M. Hartmann-Rüppel, lawyers)

of

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 5 June 2006 — Italian Republic v
Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Declare the application for annulment admissible;

— annul Commission Decision D/201953, dated 10 April
2006, rejecting three complaints of EAEPC against GlaxoS-
mithKline for infringement of Article 82 EC;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

(Case T-154/06)

(2006/C 178/69)

Language of the case: Italian

Pleas in law and main arguments

Parties

The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's deci-
sion in cases COMP/38.181, 38.274 and 38.275 — EAEPC/
Glaxo Greece (Imigran, Lamictal, Severent) relating to three
complaints of the applicant arguing that the Greek subsidiary
of GlaxoSmithKline would infringe Article 82 EC by refusing to
supply the three products Imigran, Lamictal and Severent to
Greek pharmaceutical wholesalers and therewith limiting

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, Avvocato
dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities