Case T-429/07: Action brought on 27 November 2007 — BP Aromatics v Commission
Date: 2007-11-27
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Portugal, State aid, action for annulment (EU), chemical industry, control of State aid, regional aid

C 37/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.2.2008

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.

Action brought on 27 November 2007 — BP Aromatics v
Commission

(Case T-429/07)

(2008/C 37/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BP Aromatics Ltd (Sunbury on Thames, United
Kingdom) (represented by: A. Renshaw and G. Bushell, Solici-
tors)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and any interveners granted leave to
intervene in the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceed-
ings; and

wide when it is, according to the applicant, an EEA-wide
market; and

— committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that
the relevant share of sales of Artensa will be below 25 %
when in fact it will exceed 25 % on an EEA-wide basis.

The applicant alleges that if the Commission had conducted a
detailed and proper investigation of the EEA market for purified
terephthalic acid, it would have had serious difficulties in deter-
mining whether the aid is compatible with the common market
which would have made it necessary to open the formal investi-
gation procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC.

According to the applicant, the fact that the Commission had
serious difficulties in assessing the aid during its preliminary
investigation and that it should, accordingly, have initiated the
formal procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC is corroborated
by the length of time elapsed between the notification from the
Portuguese authorities and the adoption of the contested deci-
sion.

The applicant further contends that its procedural rights were
infringed as the Commission did not, as it should have, open a
formal investigation under Article 88(2) EC.

Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed its
obligation to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC.

(1) Communication from the Commission — Multisectoral framework
on regional aid for large investment projects (notified under docu-
ment No C(2002) 315) (OJ 2002 C 70, p. 8).

— take any other actions that the Court considers to be appro-

priate.

Action brought on 26 November 2007 — Gebr. Heller
Maschinenfabrik v OHIM — Fernández Martinez (HELLER)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision
C(2007) 3202 final of 10 July 2007 by which the Commission
found State aid notified by the Portuguese authorities in favour
of Artensa (Artenius) for the construction of a new plant for the
production of chemical products to be compatible with the
common market pursuant to Article 87(3)(a) EC.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
Commission infringed Articles 87 EC and 88 EC, the rules
relating to their application, certain essential procedural require-
ments and a number of principles of Community law, in that
the Commission:

— misconstrued and misapplied the multisectoral framework
on regional aid for large investment projects 2002 (1), which
requires an analysis based on the EEA market and not on a
worldwide market;

(Case T-431/07)

(2008/C 37/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Gebr. Heller Maschinenfabrik (Nürtingen, Germany)
(represented by: W. Kessler and S. Baur, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

— committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that
the relevant market for purified terephthalic acid is world-

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Manuel Fernández Martinez (Alicante, Spain)