Case T-440/07: Action brought on 5 December 2007 — Huta Buczek v Commission
Date: 2007-12-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Poland, State aid, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, iron and steel industry, redemption

C 22/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.1.2008

The applicant puts forward that
the difference between the
amounts owed by the Greek State to OA/OAS as approximately
assessed in Commission Decision 2003/372/EC (1) and the
compensation for damages awarded to OA/OAS by the ruling of
20 December 2006 constitutes an advantage within the
meaning of state aid rules, granted to the company. The grant of
such advantage is attributable, according to the applicant, to the
Greek State because the arbitration Court has acted as an organ
of the State.

the State measures did not amount

The applicant further submits that the Commission was under a
duty to carry out a diligent and impartial examination of the
complaint received in order to either adopt a decision declaring
that
to aid within the
meaning of Article 87(1) EC, or that those measures were to be
classified as aid within the meaning of the said provision but
were compatible with the common market under Article 87(2)
and (3) EC, or to initiate a procedure under Article 88(2) EC.

The applicant further submits that the period of seven months
which elapsed between the applicant's complaint and its letter
of formal notice was unreasonably long, and the inaction of the
Commission during that period constitutes failure to act within
the meaning of Article 232 EC.

(1) Commission Decision 2003/372/EC of 11 December 2002 on aid
granted by Greece to Olympic Airways (notified under document
number C(2002) 4831) (OJ, L 132, p. 1).

— uphold the claims for annulment and for compensation

submitted by the appellant at first instance;

— order the defendant at first instance to pay all the costs of

the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward pleas in law
alleging failures to state reasons and manifest errors of assess-
ment in the response given by the Civil Service Tribunal in rela-
tion to the first plea in law, alleging breach of Article 31(2) of
the Staff Regulations, which the appellant put forward in the
proceedings at first instance.

Action brought on 5 December 2007 — Huta Buczek v
Commission

(Case T-440/07)

(2008/C 22/95)

Language of the case: Polish

Appeal brought on 30 November 2007 by Nikos
Giannopoulos against the judgment of the Civil Service
Tribunal delivered on 20 September 2007 in Case
F-111/06, Giannopoulos v Council

(Case T-436/07 P)

(2008/C 22/94)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Nikos Giannopoulos (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium)
(represented by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, Lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

— declare the present appeal admissible;

Parties

Applicant: Huta Buczek sp. z o.o. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (repre-
sented 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;

— in the alternative, 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 in so far as the Commission orders recovery to be
effected from the company Huta Buczek sp. z o.o.;

— declare invalid Articles 4 and 5 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 in so far as those
provisions concern the effecting of recovery from Huta
Buczek sp. z o.o.;

— annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered

on 20 September 2007 in Case F-111/06;

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

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/51

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its heads of claim, the applicant puts forward the
following pleas in law:

— Breach of Articles 88(2) EC and 87(1) EC by reason of what
the applicant considers to be an erroneous assumption that
a situation consisting in the existence of public-law arrears
on the part of the company Technologie Buczek S.A. consti-
tutes aid that is contrary to the common market. The appli-
cant submits that such an assertion on the part of
the
Commission results from an erroneous assumption that the
public-law authorities had desisted from enforcement
proceedings against the company Technologie Buczek S.A.
The breach of Articles 88(2) EC and 87(1) EC has also
resulted, the applicant argues, from the fact that the Polish
State was ordered to secure recovery of aid declared incom-
patible with the common market, even though Poland did
not grant aid in the amount indicated in the decision to
either the company Technologie Buczek S.A. or the group
Technologie Buczek, and from the fact that the amount of
aid to be returned was fixed at an arbitrary level without
any foundation in law or economic justification. The appli-
cant further submits that Articles 88(2) EC and 87(1) EC
were infringed by reason of the fact that the Polish State was
ordered to secure reimbursement of aid from the company
Huta Buczek sp. z o.o. notwithstanding the fact that there
was no basis for assuming that that company could have
been the actual beneficiary of aid granted to the company
Technologie Buczek S.A and despite the fact that that aid
was not granted to it, and by reason of the acknowledge-
ment that the only actual beneficiaries of the alleged aid
were the companies Huta Buczek sp. z o.o. and Buczek
Automotive sp. z o.o., even though they benefited only
from a portion of the assets of the company Technologie
Buczek S.A.

— Infringement of the principle of proper administrative proce-
dure laid down in Article 253 EC and Article 41 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights on the grounds of: lack of
appropriate reasoning for the decision such as to allow the
applicant to determine why the decision was adopted and,
consequently, the issue of a decision that was essentially
incomprehensible to the applicant and incomprehensible by
reason of the erroneous and inadequate determination of
the factual circumstances material to the case.

— Breach of the third paragraph of Article 5 EC and infringe-
ment of the principle of proportionality resulting therefrom
by reason of the imposition on the company Huta Buczek
the obligation to reimburse the aid, even
sp. z o.o. of
though, in the view of the applicant, such action is neither
appropriate nor necessary in order to attain the objectives
set out in the Treaty, including in particular the fact that it is
not based on any need to cancel aid that is incompatible
with the common market.

— Infringement of the principle of legal certainty by reason of
the following: imposition, on a party which entered into a
contract with an individual in arrears of payment towards
public authorities, of the obligation to return aid which that
party never received and from which it never benefited;
determination, in a manner which the applicant considers to
be arbitrary, of
the extent to which persons within the
group Technologie Buczek S.A. benefited from the aid alleg-
edly distributed;
infringement of the right to property by
reason of the order to secure recovery of part of the State
aid from a person who did not receive any aid whatsoever
and was also not the actual beneficiary; misuse of powers by
reason of the publication of a decision for a purpose other
than to cancel aid incompatible with the common market.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 December 2007
— Microsoft v Commission

(Case T-271/06) (1)

(2008/C 22/96)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber)
has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.