CELEX: C1998/209/89
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-04 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 27 April 1998 by Wolfgang Hilden against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-70/98)

4.7.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 209/43
Action brought on 27 April 1998 by Wolfgang Hilden                 of the Barcelona Bar, and BegonÄa Uriarte, with an address
  against the Commission of the European Communities               for service at 78 Avenue d'Auderghem, Brussels.
                       (Case T-70/98)
                        (98/C 209/89)                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                (Language of the case: French)                     Ð annul the Commission's decision of 5 November 1997
                                                                       declaring incompatible with the common market the
                                                                       aid Spain proposes to grant to Astilleros Zamacona
An action against the Commission of the European                       S.A.,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 27 April 1998
by Wolfgang Hilden, residing in Trierweiler (Germany),             Ð order the Commission to pay the entire costs of the
represented by Nicolas LhoeÈst , of the Brussels Bar, with             proceedings.
an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   The present action is directed against the decision of the
                                                                   Commission whereby it declares the proposal of Spain to
Ð Rule that the applicant's request that the question of           grant aid in the form of a direct grant to Astilleros
    the possible application of Article 31(2) of the Staff         Zamacona S.A. of up to 9 % of the contract value before
    Regulations be considered with a view to reviewing his         aid for five tugboat contracts (Nos 300, 301, 318, 319
    classification in grade with effect from 5 October             and 320) signed in December 1991 is incompatible with
    1995 is admissible and well-founded,                           the common market, since the aid does not comply with
                                                                   Article 4(3) of Directive 90/684/EEC (1).
Ð annul the Commission's decision implicitly rejecting
    the applicant's request that the possible application of       The applicant observes in this respect that State aid in the
    Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations be considered,          shipbuilding sector is governed by special rules laid down
                                                                   in Council Directive 90/684/EEC of 21 December 1990 on
Ð if necessary, annul the decision explicitly rejecting the        aid to shipbuilding (2), amended by Directive 94/73/EC of
    applicant's complaint, which the Commission adopted            19 December 1994 (3). Thus, Article 4 of the said directive
    on 17 December 1997,                                           authorises the granting of aid related to shipbuilding
                                                                   contracts, provided they do not exceed a common
                                                                   maximum ceiling expressed as a percentage of the contract
Ð order the defendant to pay all the costs.                        value. Article 4(3) provides that the aid ceiling applicable
                                                                   to a contract shall be that in force at the date of signature
                                                                   of the final contract', unless the ships are delivered more
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                than three years from the date of signing, in which case
                                                                   the applicable ceiling shall be that in force three years
                                                                   before the date of delivery of the ship'. Finally, Article 4(4)
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to               allows the Commission to extend the aforementioned
those relied on in Case T-68/98 (Jung v. Commission).              three-year period when this is found justified by the
                                                                   technical complexity of the individual shipbuilding project
                                                                   concerned or by delays resulting from unexpected
                                                                   disruptions of a substantial and defensible nature in the
                                                                   working programme of a yard'.
Action brought on 30 April 1998 by Astilleros Zamacona             The applicant states that in December 1991 it entered into
S.A. against the Commission of the European                        contracts with a number of shipbuilders for the
                         Communities                               construction of five tugboats. Those contracts were not to
                       (Case T-72/98)                              enter into force until the first payment had been made to
                                                                   the shipbuilder. At that time, the applicant could not
                        (98/C 209/90)                              foresee the financial uncertainty it was to face as from
                                                                   1992. That uncertainty arose from the amendments to
               (Language of the case: Spanish)                     port legislation, the devaluation of Spanish currency, the
                                                                   commencement of construction works at the port of
                                                                   Bilbao, which caused a slowdown of production, and the
An action against the Commission of the European                   takeover of the ARDEAG yard, which was imposed on
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  the applicant within the framework of the restructuring
Instance of the European Communities on 30 April 1998              programme of the Spanish shipbuilding industry. All of
by Astilleros Zamacona S.A., whose registered office is at         this caused a delay of between 7 and 14 months to the
Santurce, Vizcaya (Spain), represented by Antonio Creus,           planned date of delivery of the tugboats contracted for,