Case T-43/08: 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), control of State aid, fishing industry

C 92/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.4.2008

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

(2) the general principles of legal certainty and the protection
of legitimate expectations and of equality of treatment.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999
laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Com-
munity structural assistance in the fisheries sector (OJ L 337, p. 10).
(2) 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 L 83, p. 1).

(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 L 83, p. 1).

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

(Case T-43/08)

(2008/C 92/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Shetland

Applicant:
by:
E. Whiteford, Barrister, R. Murray, Solicitor and R. Thompson
QC)

(represented

Council

Islands

Action brought on 29 January 2008 — Transportes
Evaristo Molina v Commission

(Case T-45/08)

(2008/C 92/73)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Transportes Evaristo Molina S.A.
Águila, Spain)
Ezquerra and M.C. Flores Hernández, lawyers)

(Santa María del
(represented by: A. Hernández Pardo, L. Ruiz

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Annulment of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the decision; and

— the costs of this application.

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 Fish Catching and Processing Industry’ and ‘Aid
to the Fish Farming Industry’ consisting of different types of aid
schemes. The Commission found that the aid which the United
Kingdom implemented on the basis of
the ‘Fish Factory
Improvement Scheme’ was incompatible with the common
market, in so far as it concerned the amount of GBP 92 007,
granted on 13 August 1997, 7 January 1999, 25 February
1999, 10 December 1999, 19 January 2001 and 15 December
2004.

By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annul-
ment pursuant
to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision
C 38/2006 (ex NN 93/2005) of 13 November 2007 concerning
the ‘Fish Factory Improvement Scheme’
implemented in the
United Kingdom. In particular, the applicant seeks annulment of
Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the contested decision on the ground that
the Commission erred in finding that recovery of payments
would be compatible with:

(1) Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1);

and

— annul Commission Decision of 12 April 2006 relating to a
Treaty

under Article

proceeding
81
COMP/B-1/38.348 Repsol CPP, and

the

EC

of

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application was brought against
the
Commission of 12 April 2006 because it accepted the commit-
ments proposed by REPSOL CPP in accordance with the provi-
sions of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) 1/2003 (1).

the decision of

That decision concerns the procedure initiated following the
request by REPSOL CPP for negative clearance or, failing that, an
individual exemption with respect to the standard agreements
and/or contracts by means of which it carried out its fuel distri-
bution activities for motor vehicles through service stations in
Spain.

In the offer of commitments accepted by the Commission,
to increase the annual
REPSOL CPP undertook,
inter alia,
number of service stations which may change supplier,
for
which it undertook to offer the bare owners/operators of the
service stations the possibility of recovery of the right in rem to
the usufruct or over the buildings subject, however, to compli-
ance with a series of conditions by the operator.