CELEX: C2004/007/65
Language: en
Date: 2004-01-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-347/03: Action brought on 9 October 2003 by Eugénio Branco, Lda, in liquidation, against the Commission of the European Communities

10.1.2004             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 7/35
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              of the allegations made by the applicants of cross-subsidies for
                                                                         parcels and express parcel operations, the Decision is therefore
                                                                         vitiated by a failure to state reasons (infringement of
—     annul the Decision of the Commission of the European               Article 253 EC).
      Communities of 27 May 2003 on State aid N 784/2002
      — United Kingdom, ‘Government rural network support
      funding, debt payment funding and rolling working                  (1) OJ L 247, p. 27.
      capital loan to Post Office Limited’, document number
      C(2003) 1652 final, in so far as it terminates the State aid
      complaint procedure initiated by the first applicant’s
      letter of 3 December 2002;
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                         Action brought on 9 October 2003 by Eugénio Branco,
                                                                         Lda, in liquidation, against the Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                                pean Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                  (Case T-347/03)
By letter of 3 December 2002, the applicants requested the                                         (2004/C 7/65)
Commission to investigate the costs and earnings structures of
the postal undertaking Consignia plc (Royal Mail Group plc)                                 (Language of the case: French)
as regards parcels and express parcel service as to the existence
of a cross-subsidy.
                                                                         An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
The applicants object to the termination by means of the                 the European Communities on 9 October 2003 against the
contested decision of the State aid complaint procedure which            Commission of the European Communities by Eugénio Bran-
they initiated. In particular, the applicants complain that, by          co, Lda, in liquidation, of Lisbon, Portugal, represented by
that contested approval decision, the Commission terminated              Bolota Belchior, lawyer.
its State aid investigation in respect of the subject of the
complaint while it was still at a preliminary stage.
                                                                         The applicants claim that Court of First Instance should:
The applicants take the view that if there had been an                   —     annul in its entirety Commission Decision C(87) 0860 of
appropriate and comprehensive examination of the obser-                        23 October 2002 which reduced the European Social
vations which the applicants submitted under the complaint                     Fund (EFS) contribution for training actions approved
procedure, the Commission would have encountered serious                       by the Commission (File 870302P3) and required the
problems and doubts as to the compatibility with the common                    applicant to repay the sum of EUR 13 929,7, and
market of the facts put forward in the complaint and would
have had to initiate a full assessment. In effect, the applicants’       —     order the defendant to pay the costs
complaint demonstrates in detail that the parcel service of the
United Kingdom’s Post is not achieving the coverage of costs
required under the Commission’s Decision of 19 June 2002
on measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
for Deutsche Post AG (1) and that therefore the suspicion of a
cross-subsidy — described in the Deutsche Post Decision as
inadmissible State aid — is founded as regards parcel services.
                                                                         The applicant maintains that the contested reduction and
                                                                         obligation to make a refund derive from the fact that the
                                                                         Commission failed to approve the request for payment of the
The applicants maintain that the parcel services which form              balance under the EFS financing procedure and did not select
the subject-matter of the applicants’ complaint are mentioned            certain expenses submitted by it.
in the Commission’s Decision only in passing and without
separate consideration of individual spheres of activity. The
Commission did not examine whether ‘Parcel Services’ consti-             The applicant submitted to the Portuguese European Social
tute the provision of a universal parcel service or, for example,        Fund Department (DAFSE) its application for EFS funding for
the handling of express parcels and, accordingly, an area of             a vocational training action on 29 June 1986, and the
competition which has long since been liberalised. In the light          Commission declared its application successful.
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/36                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            10.1.2004
Subsequently, the applicant submitted to the DAFSE an                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
application for payment of the balance of PTE 991 009 by the
EFS and of the balance of PTE 810 226 by the Portuguese                   —     annul the Commission’s decision of 9 July 2003 concern-
State. The DAFSE certified that request, which the Commission                   ing the restructuring aid which France plans to put into
approved by document No 4242 of 13 March 1989, although                         effect in favour of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse-
it considered the sum of 1 192 162 to be ineligible. On                         Méditerranée;
17 February 1998 the Commission decided, however, to
suspend the contribution.                                                 —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The Portuguese judicial authorities decided to discontinue the
legal actions pending against the applicant, thereby eliminating
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
in the applicant’s view the presumption that it had acted
irregularly. Nevertheless, the Commission adopted the decision
at issue in these proceedings.                                            By the contested decision, the Commission decided that the
                                                                          restructuring aid which France was planning to put into effect
                                                                          in favour of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée
The contested decision, in the applicant’s view, infringes                was, under certain conditions, compatible with the common
Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 and Council Decision 83/516/                  market. The applicant challenges that decision, asserting that it
EEC since the applicant complied strictly with the conditions             has a direct and individual interest in obtaining its annulment,
laid down for approval of the EFS contribution, thereby                   having regard to its active participation in the formal investi-
acquiring ‘subjective rights attaching specifically to it’.               gation procedure in respect of the aid and its competitive
                                                                          position in the reference market.
The decision also breaches the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations in so far as the Commission’s approval            In support of its action it relies, first, on alleged failure to state
decision vested in the applicant an entitlement to the contri-            the reasons on which the contested decision is based and,
butions and gave rise to an expectation on its part that it               secondly, on alleged manifest errors of fact and assessment.
would receive them if it carried out the action on the agreed
basis and also because the measure contested herein could
have been put into effect as early as 1989.
Finally, the contested decision constitutes a serious breach of
the principle of proportionality since the applicant incurred
expenses on the assumption that the Commission would fulfil
                                                                          Action brought on 13 October 2003 by Wirtschafts-
its commitments.
                                                                          kammer Kärnten and best connect Ampere Strompool
                                                                          GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                                       munities
                                                                                                  (Case T-350/03)
                                                                                                    (2004/C 7/67)
Action brought on 13 October 2003 by Corsica Ferries
France against the Commission of the European Com-
                             munities                                                        (Language of the case: German)
                        (Case T-349/03)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                         (2004/C 7/66)                                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 13 October 2003 by Wirtschafts-
                                                                          kammer Kärnten and best connect Ampere Strompool GmbH,
                   (Language of the case: French)                         Klagenfurt (Austria), represented by M. Angerer, lawyer.
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                —     annul Commission Decision COMP/M.2947 — Verbund/
European Communities on 13 October 2003 by Corsica                              EnergieAllianz of 11 June 2003 on the compatibility of a
Ferries France, established in Bastia (France), represented by                  concentration with the common market and the Agree-
S. Rodrigues and C. Scapel, lawyers, with an address for service                ment on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement)
in Luxembourg.                                                                  and order the defendant to pay the costs.