Case T-40/08: Action brought on 26 January 2008 — EREF v Commission
Date: 2008-01-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, State aid, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, credit insurance, nuclear power station

C 107/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2008

Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 February 2008
— Apple Computer International v Commission

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: É. Gippini Fournier, M. Shotter and K. Mojzesowicz,
Agents)

(Case T-82/06) (1)

(Actions for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Classi-
fication in the Combined Nomenclature — Person not indivi-
dually concerned — Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 107/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Computer International (Cork, Ireland) (repre-
sented by: G. Breen, Solicitor, P. Sreenan SC, and B. Quigley,
Barrister)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: X. Lewis and J. Hottiaux, Agents)

Re:

Re:

(Belgian Institute of Post

Application for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in
the letter of the Commission of 4 August 2006, addressed to
the Institut belge des services postaux et des telecommunica-
tions
and Telecommunications
Services) containing comments, pursuant to Article 7 of Direc-
tive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for elec-
tronic communications networks and services
(Framework
Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33), concerning a draft decision
notified by that institute (Case BE/2006/0433).

Operative part of the order

The Court:

1. dismisses the action as inadmissible;

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2171/2005 of 23 December 2005 concerning the classifica-
tion of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2005
L 346, p. 7)

2. orders the applicant to pay its own costs and the costs of the

Commission;

3. orders Mobistar SA and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay

their own costs.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Apple Computer International shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

(1) OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 February 2008
— Base v Commission

(Case T-295/06) (1)

(Action for annulment — Telecommunications — Article 7 of
Directive 2002/21/EC — Wholesale market for voice call
termination on individual mobile networks in Belgium —
Significant power on the market — Commission's comments
letter — Non-actionable measure — Lack of direct concern —
Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 107/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Action brought on 26 January 2008 — EREF v
Commission

(Case T-40/08)

(2008/C 107/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF)
(Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Fouquet, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— The Decision C(2007) 4323 final of the European Commis-

sion of 25 September 2007 is declared null and void;

Applicant: Base NV (Brussels, Belgium)
Verheyden, Y. Desmedt and F. Bimont, lawyers)

(represented by: A.

— the financial vehicle in question in its present shape and

structure is declared unlawful state aid;

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).