Case T-313/07: Action brought on 16 August 2007 — Cemex UK Cement v Commission
Date: 2007-10-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, action for annulment (EU), cement, greenhouse gas, reduction of gas emissions

6.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/25

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and arguments relied upon are similar to those in
Case T-234/04 Netherlands v Commission (previously Case
C-103/04) (1).

a period of emissions which the UK authorities knew to be
unrepresentative;

(b) impedes the right of establishment of the applicant's parent

company, Cemex Espana SA.

(1) OJ 2004 C 94, p. 30.

Action brought on 16 August 2007 — Cemex UK Cement
v Commission

(Case T-313/07)

(2007/C 235/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cemex UK Cement Ltd (Thorpe, United Kingdom),
(represented by: S. Tromans, C. Thomann, lawyers, D. Wyatt QC
and S. Taylor, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— to annul the Commission Decision of 12 June 2007, noti-
fied to the applicant, and received on 21 June 2007,
rejecting the complaint made by Cemex UK Cement Limited
concerning 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 the Council;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application seeks annulment of a Commission decision
contained in a letter dated 12 June 2007 and received by the
applicant on 21 June 2007, rejecting a complaint filed by the
applicant concerning the national allocation plan for Phase II of
the EU Emissions Trading Scheme notified by the United
Kingdom in accordance with directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the
European Parliament and the Council.

The applicant complained to the European Commission that the
reduction of allowances under the latter national allocation
plan, in respect of the applicant's Rugby plant, along with the
resulting over-allocation in respect of installations operated by
the applicant's competitors, amounted to unlawful State aid,
which allegedly:

The applicant further contends that the Commission was wrong
to see no incompatible aid deriving from the ‘First Year Rule’
and accordingly wrong to decline to initiate proceedings under
Article 88(2) EC.
the
Commission was wrong to conclude that the allocation metho-
dology of allowances applied by the United Kingdom to the
Rugby plant was not discriminatory and was consistent with
Commission guidance.

the applicant claims

In that sense,

(1) Directive 2003/87/EC of

the
Council concerning the establishment of a scheme for greenhouse
gas emission allowance trading in the Community and amending
Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, p. 32).

the European Parliament and of

Action brought on 22 August 2007 — Simsalagrimm
Filmproduktion v Commission and EACEA

(Case T-314/07)

(2007/C 235/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant:
Germany) (represented by: D. Reich and D. Sharma, lawyers)

Simsalagrimm Filmproduktion GmbH (Munich,

Defendants: Commission of
Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)

the European Communities and

Form of order sought

— Annul the Decision Debit Note No 3240905584 of 20 June

2007;

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In 1998, the applicant and the Commission signed a contract
relating to support
for a computer-animated cartoon series
within the framework of the MEDIA II — Development and
distribution programme (1). By letter of 20 June 2007, EACEA
demanded reimbursement by the applicant of all of the monies
advanced pursuant to that contract. The applicant brought the
present action to contest that decision.

(a) unlawfully discriminates against the Rugby plant by failing
to take sufficient account of the latter plant's period of
commissioning, and by basing the allocation to the plant on

The applicant claims, first, that EACEA was not formally compe-
tent to take the contested decision, as it is the Commission that
remains competent in that regard.