Case T-44/08: Action brought on 24 January 2008 — Shetland Islands Council v Commission
Date: 2008-01-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Scotland, State aid, United Kingdom, action for annulment (EU), aid system, control of State aid, fishing industry, fishing vessel

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/27

— the European Commission is ordered to pay all procedural

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

costs, including the costs of the claimant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In 2004 the applicant filed a complaint with the Commission
claiming that different aspects of the financing of a new power
plant under construction in Finland amounted to state aid that
had not been notified. The state aid aspects of the complaint
were
case number
CP 238/04 and in 2006 the Commission decided to split the
file into two separate cases numbered NN 62/A/2006 and
NN 62/B/2006.

registered by the Commission under

Form of order sought

— Annulment of Articles 1(2), 3, 4 and 5 of the decision; and

— the costs of this application.

In the present case, the applicant seeks annulment of Commis-
sion Decision C(2007) 4323 final of 25 September 2007
concerning case NN 62/A/2006, notified to it on 14 November
2007, by which the Commission concluded that the export
guarantee provided by the
agency
(‘COFACE’) granting a credit for the financing of the new power
plant unit ‘Olkiluoto 3’ purchased by the Finnish electricity
generation company Teollisuuden Voima Oy (‘TVO’) did not
constitute illegal state aid and thus, decided to close the investi-
gation.

French export

credit

intercommunity aid due to its financial

The applicant claims that the export guarantee or credit insur-
ance of EUR 570 000 provided by COFACE to TVO constitutes
illegal
impact on the
overall financing package of the project concerned. The appli-
cant contends that the guarantee constituted unlawful state aid
in so far as it was provided by COFACE acting as a public
agency on the account of France which undertook responsibility
to cover repayment of the credit to the bank consortium in case
TVO was unable to pay and in so far as it conferred an unfair
economic advantage to TVO, facilitating its access to the market
the
and securing its future financing potential.
applicant submits that such a secured loan will enable TVO to
produce electricity at a considerably lower cost.

In addition,

Further, it asserts that the splitting of the file into two separate
cases violates essential procedural rules and leads to incorrect
assessments.

Action brought on 24 January 2008 — Shetland Islands
Council v Commission

(Case T-44/08)

(2008/C 107/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shetland Islands Council (Lerwick, United Kingdom)
(represented by: E. Whiteford, Barrister, R. Murray, Solicitor, and
R. Thompson QC)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a public authority that made payments to the
fisheries sector under the scope of two general aid measures,
named ‘Aid to the Fish Catching and Processing Industry’ and
‘Aid to the Fish Farming Industry’, consisting of different types
of aid schemes. One of these schemes was the First Time Share-
holders Scheme. The Commission found that the aid which the
United Kingdom implemented on the basis of this scheme was
incompatible with the common market, in so far as it concerned
aid granted for the first time acquisition of a share in a second-
hand fishing vessel.

By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annul-
ment pursuant
to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision
C 39/2006 (ex NN 94/2005) of 13 November 2007 concerning
the First Time Shareholders Scheme implemented in the United
Kingdom.
seeks annulment of
Article 1(2), 3, 4, and 5 of
the contested decision on the
following grounds:

the applicant

In particular,

(1) The Commission erred in law in finding that all payments
made for the first time acquisition of a share in a second-
hand fishing vessel were incompatible with the common
market and had to be paid back;

(2) The Commission erred in law in finding that recovery of

these payments would be compatible with:

(a) Article

of
No 659/1999 (1); and

14(1)

Council

Regulation

(EC)

(b) the general principles of legal certainty and the protec-
tion of legitimate expectations and of equality of treat-
ment.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty
(OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).