Case T-54/07: Action brought on 19 February 2007 — Vtesse Networks v Commission
Date: 2007-02-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, United Kingdom, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, property tax, tax relief, telecommunications industry

C 82/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.4.2007

Action brought on 19 February 2007 — Vtesse Networks
v Commission

(Case T-54/07)

(2007/C 82/107)

Language of the case: English

Finally, the applicant contends that the Commission did not
sufficiently reason the contested decision with regard to the
competition actually occurring between the applicant and BT
plc.

(1) Commission Decision of 12 October 2006 — the United Kingdom's
application of the tax on non-domestic property to telecommunica-
tions infrastructure in the United Kingdom (No C 4/2005 (ex
NN 57/2004, ex CP 26/2004) — notified under document number
C(2006) 4378) (OJ 2006 L 383, p. 70).

Parties

Applicant: Vtesse Networks Ltd. (St. Albans, United Kingdom)
(represented by: H. Mercer, Barrister)

Action brought on 23 February 2007 — Kingdom of the
Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

(Case T-55/07)

(2007/C 82/108)

Language of the case: Dutch

— Annul Article 1 of the decision insofar as it determined that
the application by the United Kingdom of the tax on non-
domestic property to BT plc from 1995 to the end of 2005
does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1)
EC;

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H.G.
Sevenster and D.J.M. de Grave, acting as Agents)

— order the Commission to pay Vtesse's costs of this action.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision
2006/951/EC (1) of 12 October 2006 finding that the applica-
tion by the United Kingdom of the tax on non-domestic prop-
erty to BT plc and Kingston Communications plc from 1995
until
the end of 2005 does not constitute aid within the
meaning of Article 87(1) EC.

The applicant alleges that the Commission failed to consider
and/or to investigate the competitive disadvantage suffered by
the applicant vis-à-vis BT plc at the margin when bidding along-
side BT plc for contracts with customers for high capacity retail
leased lines using optical fibres.

The applicant submits that the Commission erred in law in the
application of Article 87(1) EC in particular by failing to define
the relevant market and thereby failing to identify the advantage
in fact granted by business rates to BT plc in relation to compe-
tition at the margin.

the

that

claims

applicant

the Commission
Furthermore,
committed a manifest error of appraisal of the significance and
relevance of the class of contracts where the applicant competed
with BT plc and failed to investigate sufficiently the facts of
competition at the margin leading to the Commission's reliance
on a market share for BT plc of 12 % when the most relevant
market share for BT plc was, according to the applicant, 78 %.

— Annul

in part the Commission Decision of 14 December
2006 excluding from Community financing certain expendi-
ture incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee
Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guar-
antee Fund (EAGGF) in so far as it relates to the Netherlands
and more particularly with regard to the financial correction
applied in it regarding payment requested for non-subsidi-
sable expenditure in the framework of the EAGGF, Guar-
antee Section,
the year 2002 in the amount of
EUR 5.67 million;

for

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

its application the Netherlands alleges,

In support of
first,
breach of Article 4 of Regulation No 2603/1999 (1), by incor-
rectly interpreting and applying the concept of
‘multiannual
expenditure’ within the meaning of that article.

Secondly, the applicant complains of breach of Article 44(2) of
Regulation 1257/1999 (2), and also the principle of the protec-
legitimate expectations through the application of a
tion of
financial correction of the full amount of the sum concerned, as
a consequence of the procedure followed by the Netherlands
authorities, when the Commission had previously approved the
declaration under the Guarantee section pursuant to the proce-
the Netherlands
dure in the framework of
programme document for rural development 2000-2006.

the approval of