CELEX: C1999/281/47
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-171/99: Action brought on 23 July 1999 by British Steel plc against the Commission of the European Communities

C 281/24                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.10.1999
Action brought on 13 July 1999 by Diputación Foral de                     represented by Mark Brealey and Jonathan Lawrence, with an
Alava against the Commission of the European Communi-                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt
                                   ties                                    & Medernach, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt.
                            (Case T-168/99)                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — annul the contested decision on the grounds set out in the
                            (1999/C 281/45)                                     application and;
                                                                           — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action,
                     (Language of the case: Spanish)                            including those of the applicant.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  Pleas in law and main arguments
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 July 1999 by Diputación Foral
de Alava, represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña                The applicant, a public limited company incorporated in
Uriarte Valiente, lawyers, with an address for service c/o                 England, has already raised similar issues in four applications
Cuatrecasas Abogados, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, 1040 Brus-                    against the Commission, currently pending before the Court
sels.                                                                      of First Instance of the European Communities (1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                By the present application, the applicant submits that the
                                                                           Commission has purported to approve aid to be granted to
— annul the Commission Decision of 31 March 1999 in so                     the Spanish coal mining industry in 1999. According to the
     far as it initiates a State aid proceeding against the financial      applicant, the contested decision should be declared void in
     measures provided for in Normas Forales (regional regu-               whole or in part for the following reasons:
     lations) 22/1994 and 24/1996 and requires the Spanish
     State to suspend the payment of sums in pursuance thereof             — the Commission has no competence to approve the aid
     to the company Ramondı́n S.A.;                                             under Article 1(1) of the Code unless the aid complies with
                                                                                Articles 2 to 9 of the Code;
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                           — the approval of State aid infringed an essential procedural
                                                                                requirement and/of infringed the ECSC Treaty and/or a
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 rule of law relating to its application;
                                                                           — the Commission has failed properly or at all to provide in
By the present action, the applicant contests the decision of                   the contested decision the reasons for authorising the aid
the Commission by which it found that certain financial                         in several cases.
measures adopted in relation to Ramondı́n S.A. constitute
State aid incompatible with the common market.
                                                                           (1) See cases T-110/98 (OJ C 299 of 26/9/98, p. 38) ; T-111/98 (OJ
                                                                               C 299 of 26/9/98, p. 39) ; T-12/99 (OJ C 86 of 27/3/99, p. 25) ;
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                       T-63/99 (OJ C 160 of 5/6/99, p. 26).
advanced in Case T-127/95 Territorio Histórico de Alava,
Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación Foral de Alava v
Commission.
                                                                           Action brought on 23 July 1999 by British Steel plc
                                                                             against the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 20 July 1999 by RJB Mining plc against
       the Commission of the European Communities                                                   (Case T-171/99)
                            (Case T-170/99)                                                         (1999/C 281/47)
                            (1999/C 281/46)                                                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 23 July 1999 by British Steel plc,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  represented by Philip G.H. Collins and Matthew Levitt, with an
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Marc
European Communities on 20 July 1999 by RJB Mining plc,                    Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.10.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 281/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty. On 23 April 1999,
                                                                        the Commission repaid to the applicant the sum of EUR
    pursuant to Article 40 CS:                                          12 million. It declared however that it considered that it was
                                                                        not required to pay interest on this sum.
    — order the Commission to pay to British Steel the sum
         of GBP 3 533 474, or such other sum as the Court               The applicant submits that, having imposed and received
         deems appropriate:                                             payment of a fine which was, to the extent identified by the
                                                                        Court, unlawful, the Commission has wrongly refused to pay
                                                                        the applicant pecuniary reparation in the form of interest on
    — order the Commission to pay to British Steel interest             the fine paid by it. As a direct result of this attitude of the
         at a rate which the Court considers to be just in all the      Commission, which constitutes a ‘wrongful act or omission’
         circumstances on the sum of GBP 3 533 474 (or such             within the meaning of Article 40 CS, the applicant has suffered
         other sum, as aforesaid) from 24 April 1999 until final        considerable monetary loss. The Commission should therefore
         judgment of this Court;                                        be ordered to pay it compensation equivalent to its loss of
                                                                        earnings on the sum of ECU/EUR 12 million from the date
    — order the Commission to pay to British Steel interest             when the fine was paid by it until 23 April 1999, together
         at 8 % on such compensation as the Court orders to be          with interest on that sum until the date of payment.
         paid under subparagraphs (a) and (b) above as from
         the date of the Court’s final judgment in this case until      In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission
         payment thereof;                                               is liable to it pursuant Article 34 CS. According to the
                                                                        provisions of that article, where a decision of the Commission
    or, in the alternative: pursuant to Article 34 CS:                  has been declared void by the Court, the Commission should
                                                                        take the necessary measures to comply with the judgement. If,
                                                                        within a reasonable time, the Commission has failed to take
    — declare that Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC was
                                                                        the necessary steps to comply with the judgment, proceedings
         vitiated by faults of such nature as to render the
                                                                        for damages may be instituted. In the present case, the
         Community fiable;
                                                                        Commission has failed to take the necessary measures to
                                                                        comply with the judgment since it has not effected a full
    — declare that, as a result of the Commission’s fault,              restitutio in integrum by compensating the applicant for its loss
         British steel has suffered direct and special harm in          of earnings on the sum of fine unlawfully imposed by the
         being unlawfully deprived of the use of ECU/EUR                Commission.
         12 000 000 from the date of payment of that sum to
         the Commission on 2 June 1994;
                                                                        (1) OJ 1994 L 116/1.
    — refer the case to the Commission and order it to adopt
         appropriate measures in order to ensure equitable
         redress for the harm directly resulting from the Com-
         mission’s conduct, and to pay appropriate damages as
         far as may be necessary;
    and in either case:
                                                                        Action brought on 26 July 1999 by Francesca Pentericci
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
    — order the Commission to pay British Steel’s costs.
                                                                                                  (Case T-172/99)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                  (1999/C 281/48)
The applicant states that on 16 February 1994 the Commission
adopted Decision 94/215/ECSC relating to a proceeding                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agree-
ments and concerted practices engaged in by European
producers of beams (the ‘Decision’) (1). A fine of ECU 32 mil-          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
lion was imposed on the applicant. On 13 April 1994, the                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
applicant lodged an application for the annulment of the                European Communities on 26 July 1999 by Francesca Pente-
Decision al the Court of First Instance (Case T-151/94).                ricci, represented by Marcello Pentericci, of the Ancona Bar,
Nevertheless, on 2 June 1994, it paid to the Commission the             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
entirety of the fine imposed on it.                                     Jean Brucher, 10 Rue de Vianden.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
On 11 March 1999, the Court delivered its judgment in Case
T-151/94. In the judgment, the Court sets the amount of the             — annul the decision by which the selection board in
fine imposed on the applicant at EUR 20 million. For the claim               competition No COM A/12/98 refused to admit her to the
for interest, the Court notes that it is for the Commission to               written tests in the competition, and consequently order
take the necessary steps to comply with the judgment, in                     that she be admitted thereto;