Case T-422/07: Action brought on 16 November 2007 — DJEBEL v Commission
Date: 2007-11-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Portugal, State aid, action for annulment (EU), industrial investment, investment company, tourism

C 64/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.3.2008

Action brought on 16 November 2007 — DJEBEL v
Commission

(Case T-422/07)

(2008/C 64/65)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: DJEBEL SGPS, SA (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by:
M. Andrade Neves and S. Castro Caldeira)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annulment of the decision of the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities of 10 May 2007, published in the Offi-
cial Journal of the European Union of 24 August 2007, on
State aid C 4/2006 (ex N 180/2005) — Portugal — Aid to
Djebel
(notified under document number C(2007) 1959)
(OJ 2007 L 219, p. 30);

— an order amending the decision adopted by the Commission
on 10 May 2007 with regard to the aid requested by Djebel
so as to authorise the grant of aid in the terms proposed by
Djebel and the Portuguese authorities.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The State aid requested by the applicant is not incompatible
with the applicable provisions of the EC Treaty.

Djebel fulfilled the legal conditions for having its candidature
included in the SIME and the Commission is required to abide
by the conditions for the admissibility of the candidature laid
down by the law of the Portuguese Republic applicable to the
matter.

The applicable Portuguese legislation provided that in respect of
candidatures submitted before 31 January 2001 investment
expenditure incurred after 1 July 1999 could be counted as
reimbursable.

The State aid at issue was intended to provide incentives for and
to support the internationalisation of Grupo Pestana and was
requested before the investment was made.

The applicant is not to suffer loss by reason of the dilatoriness
of the responsible authorities in evaluating the project.

— recognition by the Court of First Instance that:

The aid requested by the applicant cannot be assessed in the
light of the present economic and financial situation.

— the aid requested was and is essential in order to carry
out the investment project consisting of acquiring capital
in RASH and the consequent purchase of the Hotel Rio
Atlântico;

— the aid was requested before the investment was made;

— DJEBEL's project was Grupo Pestana's first actual experi-

ence of internationalisation;

— carrying out that project did not alter the conditions of
competition for European undertakings, either for those
established in the territory of the Community or for
those operating abroad;

— carrying out the project did not place Grupo Pestana in
any situation of advantage that might have put it in a
position to distort trade between Member States;

— the aid requested by Djebel presents the same features as
that which was requested for Vila Galé and which was
approved by the Commission by its decision of
15 October 2003;

Without the aid at issue, the applicant would not have made the
investment corresponding to the project in question.

Grupo Pestana's first experience of internationalisation consists
of the purchase made by the applicant in connection with the
investment plan.

In 1999 Grupo Pestana did not possess the financial means to
carry out by itself the investment in Brazil.

Making that investment made no significant impact on trading
conditions in the EU.

There is no link whatsoever between the purchase made by the
applicant in Brazil and Grupo Pestana's expansion in Portugal.

The investment project submitted by the applicant and the aid
granted it are compatible with the rules of the EC Treaty, in par-
ticular with Article 87(3)(c) EC.

— a declaration that the grant of aid to Djebel, in the terms
and on the grounds indicated, is not incompatible with any
provision of the EC Treaty whatsoever or with any legislative
provision implementing the Treaty;

The aid granted to the applicant facilitated the development of
an economic activity, so falling within the scope of the excep-
tion provided for in Article 83(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/41

There has been no infringement whatsoever of the provisions of
the EC Treaty or of secondary legislation thereunder and no
distorting effect on competition in the common market.

In accordance with the principle of equal treatment, the appli-
cant maintains that, given that the investment project in ques-
tion presents all the features presented by the Vila Galé project
— the subject of the Commission's decision of 15 October
2003 — the Commission's decision on State aid C 4/2006
ought to have been the same as the former decision.

Action brought on 19 December

2007 — Dow

Agrosciences BV and Others v Commission

(Case T-470/07)

(2008/C 64/67)

Language of the case: English

Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Salej and
Technologie Buczek v Commission

Parties

(Case T-465/07)

(2008/C 64/66)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicants: Emilian Salej, acting as receiver for Technologie
Buczek S.A. (Sosnowiec, Poland), and Technologie Buczek S.A.
(Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: D. Szlachetko-Reiter, legal
adviser)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— declare invalid Articles 1, 3(1) and 3(3) of the Commission
decision of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006
(ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to
the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek;

2007

23 October

— declare invalid Articles 4 and 5 of the Commission decision
of
in Case No C 23/2006
(ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to
the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek in so far as
those provisions concern the recovery of the aid mentioned
in Article 1 of the decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the form of order sought, the applicants put
forward pleas in law identical to those raised by the applicant in
Case T-440/07 Huta Buczek v Commission (1).

(1) OJ 2008 C 22, p. 50.

Applicants: Dow Agrosciences BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands),
Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom), Dow AgroS-
ciences SAS (Mougins, France), Dow AgroSciences Export SAS
(Mougins, France), Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl
Italy),
Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA (Madrid, Spain), Dow AgroS-
ciences Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH (Neusiedl am See, Austria),
Dow AgroSciences LLC (Indianapolis, United States) (represented
by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu, lawyers)

(Milan,

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— To

order
2007/619/EC;

the

annulment

of Commission Decision

— to order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision
2007/619/EC of 20 September 2007 concerning the non-inclu-
sion of 1,3-dichloropropene in Annex I to Council Directive
91/414/EEC (1)
(‘Directive 91/414’) and the withdrawal of
authorisations for plant protection products containing that
substance.

According to the applicants, the contested decision is unlawful
because of the following reasons:

(a) it infringes essential procedural requirements, as it is based
on a report
from the European Food Safety Authority
(‘EFSA’) that allegedly infringes Article 8(7) of Commission
Regulation 451/2000 (2); as the defendant infringed Article
8(8) of the above-mentioned regulation and as the contested
decision fails to comply with the applicable legislative proce-
dure, infringing thus, Articles 5 EC, 7 EC and Article 5 of
Decision 1999/468 (3);