CELEX: C1996/233/28
Language: en
Date: 1996-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 29 May 1996 by G. van der Wal against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-83/96)

No C 233/ 16              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10 . 8 . 96
 In this action the applicants challenge the following                        results in an infringement of Article 213 of the Fourth
 decisions :                                                                  ACP-EEC Convention .
                                                                          ') OJ No C 128 , 1 . 5 . 1996 , p . 3 .
 1 . The Commission's decision of 1 1 January 1996 ( SG(96 )              -) Case T-83/95 , OJ No C 137, 31 . 6 , 1 995 .
       D/ 1245 ), addressed to the Portuguese Government. By
       this decision the Commission authorized the Portuguese
       State aid ( fiscal incentive and training costs ) granted by
       the Portuguese Government to DAI for the
       establishment of a beet-sugar factory in Portugal . The
       Commission also decided not to investigate the                    Action brought on 29 May 1996 by G. van der Wal against
       investment aid , as it was granted by the Portuguese                     the Commission of the European Communities
       Government within the framework of Regulation ( EEC )                                      ( Case T-83 /96 )
       No 866/90 and Community co-financing.
                                                                                                    ( 96/C 233/28 )
      The applicants maintain that the decision is unlawful
       and erroneous for the following reasons :                                         (Language of the case: Dutcb)
      — the decision is inadequately and insufficiently                  An action against the Commission of the European
           reasoned ( Article 190 of the EC Treaty ),                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities on 29 May 1996 by
      — procedural requirements have not been observed :                 G. van der Wal , of Kraainem , Belgium , represented by P.
           notwithstanding the active participation of the               Bleeker and L. Y. J. M. Parret, of the Brussels Bar, with an
           applicants , they were not invited to take part in the       address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A.
           procedure ; it is contrary to a fair and transparent         May, 31 Grand Rue .
           application of the State aid provisions to leave the
           applicants outside the administrative procedure .            The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — annul the Commission's decision of 29 March 1 996 ,
2.    The    Commission's       decision   of  19   March     1996           and
      ( VI/012420 ). By this decision the Commission informed
      the applicants of the rejection of their complaint and of         — order the Commission to bear the costs .
      the authorization of 11 January 1996 .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      The applicants consider that the decision is unlawful
      and erroneous for reasons similar to those put forward            On         the     basis        of        Commission Decision
      in Case T-83 /95 .                                                94/90/ECSC/EC/Euratom (') the applicant asked the
                                                                        Commission for copies of the letters it had sent to three
                                                                        national judicial bodies referred to in the 24th Report on
3 . The Commission's decision of 23 November 1995 ( Aid
                                                                        Competition ( 1994 ). That request was rejected by the
      No N832/95 ) not to raise an objection under Articles 92          contested decision .
      and 93 of the EC Treaty against aid for the marketing of
      agricultural products with the object of improving the            The applicant submits inter alia that :
      conditions of processing and marketing agricultural
      products .                                                        — the contested decision does not satisfy the requirement
                                                                             that reasons be given under Article 190 of the EC
      The applicants explain that at this stage of the procedure             Treaty,
      they do not have any information , apart from the
      publication of the authorization by the Commission ( OJ           — the 'protection of the public interest' may be invoked
      No C 128 , 1996 , p . 3 ). However, they cannot discount               only because of the particular circumstances of an
      the possibility that this authorization concerns the                   individual case , of which there was no mention by the
      inclusion of the beet-sugar sector in the national                     Commission in this instance,
      legislation for the application of Regulation ( EEC )
      No 866/90 . Should this be the case , they raise against          — the derogation for 'court proceedings ' relates to
      this decision all the pleas of law set out earlier in their            procedures in which the Commission is a party, and not
      application .                                                          the provision of information — which , moreover, was
                                                                             not confidential — to national courts,
Finally, the applicants submit that the State aid to DAI and
the Commission's decision not to take measures and initiate             — therê is no basis for the Commission's view that
the procedure requested by them and to authorize the aid                     disclosure of the letters would undermine cooperation
and/or not to raise any objections :                                         with national courts .
— is contrary to the Multilateral Agreements on Trade,                  C ) OJ No L 46 , 1994 , p . 58 .
     more specifically the Agreement on Agriculture
     ( Article 6 of Annex II ), and