CELEX: C2002/219/55
Language: en
Date: 2002-09-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-211/02: Action brought on 15 July 2002 by Tideland Signal Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

14.9.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 219/23
Action brought on 12 July 2002 by the British Aggregates                 certain sectors are not taxed in order to protect their competi-
Association Co Limited against the Commission of the                     tiveness. Therefore, the Levy must be considered to be State
                    European Communities                                 Aid.
                        (Case T-210/02)
                                                                         Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission failed
                                                                         to state reasons in the contested Decision, as required by
                        (2002/C 219/54)                                  Article 253 EC Treaty. According to the applicant, the
                                                                         Commission also violated its obligation to initiate a formal
                                                                         investigation procedure, where the preliminary investigation
                  (Language of the case: English)                        was carried out in insufficient depth to resolve the serious
                                                                         difficulties regarding the compatibility of the measure with the
                                                                         State Aid provisions. The applicant also submits that the
                                                                         Commission violated its procedural obligations in the prelimi-
                                                                         nary investigation. In this respect, the applicant claims that
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                the Commission did not conduct a diligent and impartial
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               examination of the applicant’s complaint and did not provide
European Communities on 12 July 2002 by the British                      the applicant with an adequate explanation for rejecting its
Aggregates Association Co Limited, represented by Craig                  arguments.
Pouncey and Lode Van Den Hende of Herbert Smith, Brussels
(Belgium).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Commission Decision C(2002) 1478fin of 24 April
      2002 ‘State Aid N 863/01- United Kingdom/Aggregates
      Levy’ save as regards the exemption for Northern Ireland;
                                                                         Action brought on 15 July 2002 by Tideland Signal
                                                                         Limited against the Commission of the European Com-
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in the                                        munities
      present proceedings.
                                                                                                  (Case T-211/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                  (2002/C 219/55)
The applicant is an association representing smaller and
                                                                                            (Language of the case: English)
independent quarrying companies in the United Kingdom.
The competitive position of its members is affected by the
Aggregates Levy, an environmental tax raised by the United
Kingdom on certain aggregates. The objective of the Levy is to
reflect the environmental impacts of aggregate quarrying more
fully in the price of aggregates. These environmental costs              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
include noise, dust, damage to biodiversity and visual amenity.          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
A further objective of the Levy is the encouragement of the              European Communities on 15 July 2002 by Tideland Signal
use of recycled or alternative material.                                 Limited, represented by Christopher Thomas and Ciara Kenne-
                                                                         dy of Lovells, Brussels (Belgium).
In the contested Decision, the Commission declared the Levy
to be compatible with the Common Market.                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the Commission Decision of 17 June 2002 rejecting
According to the applicant, the Commission made a manifest                     the tender submitted by Tideland Signal Limited in
error of assessment in deciding that the distinction made                      tender procedure EUROPEAID/112336/C/S/WW-TACIS-
between taxable and non-taxable situations is justified by the                 (RE-TENDER);
logic and nature of the tax system. The applicant claims,
however, that the objectives of the Levy cannot explain the
different treatment of similar situations. The applicant also            —     order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
stated that the United Kingdom authorities admitted that                       applicant.
 ---pagebreak--- C 219/24              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.9.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant submitted a tender for the delivery of buoys
to harbours in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan                   —     annul the decision of the Selection Board in competition
following the supply procurement notice issued by the Com-                     PE/90/A of 3 April 2002 refusing to admit the applicant
mission. The notice was subject to a corrigendum, after which                  to the next stages in the competition for having obtained
the applicant was given the opportunity to modify its tender.                  insufficient marks in one of the written tests (test C) and
Since the corrigendum did not give rise to any changes as                      annul the decision of the Selection Board in competition
regards the applicant, it sent back the same tender unchanged                  PE/90/A of 31 May 2002 confirming its decision of
to the Commission. After this, the applicant was informed that                 3 April 2002 and rejecting the applicant’s request seeking
its tender was rejected, since it did not comply with the 90-                  access to certain documents;
day validity period fixed for a tender from the date of its
submission.
                                                                         —     annul the whole of the competition;
The applicant considers that this Decision contains an error of
fact. The end date of the validity of the tender, i.e. 28 July
2002, was calculated from the date of the initial deadline of
29 April 2002. This date was not altered by the second                   —     at the very least, annul all the aspects and acts of the
submission of the tender, following the corrigendum of the                     competition subsequent to the unlawful elements of the
notice by the Commission, since the applicant sent back the                    individual decisions of 3 April 2002 and 31 May 2002,
same tender. The applicant claims, however, that it was clear                  in particular, the list of successful candidates and the
from the surrounding circumstances and other indications in                    appointments made on the basis of that list;
the tender that the tender was valid for 90 days from the
revised deadline of 11 June 2002 onwards.
                                                                         —     in any event, order the defendant to adopt all the
                                                                               necessary measures in order to restore the applicant’s
Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission has
                                                                               rights as a candidate who has passed tests A, B and C of
violated paragraph 19.5 of the Instructions to Tenderers, the
                                                                               the competition in question;
duty of care and the principle of proportionality. According to
paragraph 19.5 of these Instructions, the Commission can
require Tenderers to provide clarification of a tender within
24 hours. The applicant claims that other statements in the              —     failing that, order the defendant to pay damages assessed,
tender and the surrounding circumstances in general should
                                                                               at the material time, at EUR 10 389,46, subject to
have given rise to doubt which required clarification of the
                                                                               increment;
duration of the tender’s validity. The Commission has not,
however, made use of this possibility.
                                                                         —     order the defendant to produce the corrected copy of
                                                                               test C and general and objective assessment criteria, to
                                                                               identify the publicly accessible documents which the
                                                                               Board used when marking test C and to produce the
                                                                               Board’s reasoned report;
Action brought on 15 July 2002 by María-Angeles Martí-
            nez Valls against European Parliament
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                        (Case T-214/02)
                        (2002/C 219/56)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
15 July 2002 by María-Angeles Martínez Valls, residing in
Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure                  The applicant alleges breach of the duty to provide reasons,
Levi, lawyers.                                                           breach of the general principle of transparency, breach of the