CELEX: C1998/209/91
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-04 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 5 May 1998 by Société Chimique Prayon Rupel S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-73/98)

C 209/44              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.7.98
which, by exceeding the limit of three years referred to in        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the abovementioned provision, led to the aid initially
provided for being reduced from 9 % to 4.5 % of the total
cost of the project.                                               The applicant, a company incorporated under Belgian law
                                                                   which manufactures and sells purified phosphoric acid, a
                                                                   finished product derived from wet' processing, and
In support of its claims the applicant alleges that the            phosphatic salts, contests the decision of the Commission
Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in             approving certain aid granted by the German authorities
not considering that the four factors enumerated above             in favour of Chemische Werke Piesteritz GmbH (CWP'),
constituted unexpected disruptions of a substantial and            inasmuch as the said aid constitutes measures which are
defensible nature, within the meaning of Article 4 of              supplementary to its restructuring and privatisation. It
Directive 90/684/EEC, which affected the working                   alleges that those measures concern, in particular, the
programme of the yard.                                             covering of losses, suspension of payment of the purchase
                                                                   price and investment aid. CWP produces pure phosphoric
Furthermore, the present action is based on an                     acid by means of the thermal' process, yellow phosphorus
infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty inasmuch as,             and phosphatic salts. One of the fundamental aspects of
according to the applicant, the Commission failed to               the present dispute concerns the alleged error of
provide a sufficient statement of reasons for the contested        assessment committed by the Commission in considering
decision.                                                          that, in order to switch over from the thermal process to
                                                                   the wet process, it is necessary merely to replace the
                                                                   chemical processor'.
Finally, the applicant claims that the principle of
proportionality has been breached inasmuch as the
conduct of the applicant, namely the delay of 7 to 14              The applicant advances the following pleas in law in
months in the delivery of the vessels, has led to a halving        support of its claims:
of the aid.
(1) Commission Decision 98/157/EC of 5 November 1997               Ð Infringement of Articles 92(3)(c) and 93(3), inasmuch
    concerning aid Spain proposes to grant to Astilleros                the Commission committed a manifest error in its
    Zamacona S.A. in respect of five tugboats (OJ L 50 of               assessment of the facts and thus wrongly decided that
    20.2.1998 p. 38).                                                   the aid could be authorised on the basis of
(2) OJ L 380 of 31.12.1990 p. 27.                                       Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.
(3) OJ L 351 of 31.12.1994 p. 10.
                                                                   Ð Manifest error of assessment of the scope and
                                                                        financing of the investment, inasmuch as the defendant
                                                                        erred in considering that private funds amounting to
                                                                        DM 10 million would be invested.
Action brought on 5 May 1998 by SocieÂteÂ Chimique
Prayon Rupel S.A. against the Commission of the
                    European Communities                           Ð Unlawful and wrongful application of the guidelines
                                                                        on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in
                        (Case T-73/98)                                  difficulty. More specifically: the Commission
                         (98/C 209/91)                                  unlawfully characterised the measures in question as
                                                                        restructuring aid; consideration of the figures provided
                                                                        offers no credible guarantee of a return to viability;
                (Language of the case: French)                          and, lastly, the new investment in fact results in an
                                                                        increase in capacity. Moreover, the Commission
An action against the Commission of the European                        grossly underestimated the distortions of competition
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       resulting from the aid measure, and also erred in
Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 1998 by                   deciding that the aid in issue was limited to the
SocieÂteÂ Chimique Prayon Rupel S.A., established at Engis              minimum strictly necessary.
(Belgium), represented by Bernard van de Walle de
Ghelcke, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Freddy Brausch, 11 Rue               Ð Infringement of the provisions of Article 92(2) and (3)
Goethe.                                                                 of the EC Treaty, inasmuch as, despite the difficulties
                                                                        presented by the present case, the defendant failed to
                                                                        comply with its obligation to initiate the preliminary
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             procedure provided for in Article 93(2), in disregard of
                                                                        the guarantees for which Article 93(2) provides.
Ð annul the decision dated 16 December 1997/22 January
     1998 concerning State aid cases N 198/97 and NN 91/
     98 Ð Germany Ð Financial measures in favour of                     Finally, the applicant       pleads   infringement    of
     Chemische Werke Piesteritz,                                        Article 190 of the Treaty.
Ð order the Commission to pay all of the costs.