CELEX: C1999/314/07
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-30 00:00:00
Title: Case C-301/99 P: Appeal brought on 11 August 1999 by Areacova S.A. and 27 others against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-12/96 between Areacova S.A. and 30 others and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

C 314/4                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     30.10.1999
Appeal brought on 11 August 1999 by Areacova S.A. and                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
27 others against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                     — annul the contested decision (1);
European Communities in Case T-12/96 between Areaco-
va S.A. and 30 others and the Council of the European                   — order the Commission to pay the costs.
Union and the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case C-301/99 P)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (1999/C 314/07)                                1. The Commission maintains in the contested decision that
                                                                            the obligation to asses the aid in the light of an approval
An appeal against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Third                previously given cannot apply where, as in the present
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                      case, that approval is accompanied by the reservation of a
Communities in Case T-12/96 between Areacova S.A. and 30                    right to examine individual cases involving the application
others and the Council of the European Union and the                        of the general scheme.
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  In reality, the fact that the letter approving the national
11 August 1999 by Areacova S.A. and 27 others, represented                  plans for the sector concerned reserved the right to
by Antonio Creus Carreras of the Barcelona Bar, and Eva                     examine the measures to be taken to implement those
Contreras Ynzenga and Albert Agustinoy Guilayn, of the                      plans and requested notification of those measures does
Madrid Bar, with an address for service care of Cuatrecasas                 not mean that, in carrying out the subsequent assessments,
Abogados, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, B-1040 Brussels.                           the Commission was entitled to depart from the con-
                                                                            clusions previously reached by it, by evaluating the
The appellants claim that the Court should:                                 measures in question as individual grants of aid and
                                                                            applying new parameters which differed from those used
(1) set aside the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Court of                 at the time when the sectoral plans were approved.
     First Instance in Case T-12/96 on account of all or some
     of the defects indicated, and give effect to all the legal         2. The Commission stases that a substantial number of the
     consequences flowing from the setting aside of that order,             measures examined were not in conformity with the
     either by expressly adjudicating on the merits of the case             sectoral plans, on the grounds that some of them did not
     or by referring the matter back to the Court of First                  fall within the types of intervention provided for by the
     Instance;                                                              national sectoral plans, that some grants of aid were not
                                                                            provided for by a specific intervention plan, and that
(2) order the respondent to the proceedings before the Court                others, although provided for by sectoral plans, did not
     of Justice of the European Communities to pay the costs,               pursue any of the policy objectives described in general
     and likewise, in the event that the submissions put forward            terms in the national sectoral plans and did not lay down
     in support of the present appeal are wholly or partially               any detailed rules for carrying on activities supplementing,
     upheld, order the defendant in the proceedings at first                or in substitution for, the production of sugar.
     instance to pay the costs of those proceedings.
                                                                            On the basis of Article 46 of Regulation No 1785/81 (2)
                                                                            and Article 4 of Regulation No 1254/89 (3), the conformity
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             of the grants of aid-with the sectoral plans is, in essence,
                                                                            to be assessed in the light of the extent to which they
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                      correspond to the objectives and aims pursued as a whole
Case C-300/99 P.                                                            by those plans.
                                                                            The Commission has totally failed to state its position
                                                                            regarding the general compatibility of the initiatives adopt-
                                                                            ed with the objectives and aims pursued as a whole by
                                                                            the sectoral plans; it has merely raised the objections
                                                                            summarised above and/or examined the scope of the
Action brought on 26 August 1999 by the Italian Republic                    measures in terms of the Community guidelines concern-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                        ing aid. This constitutes a further defect in the contested
                                                                            decision, either because it infringes the Community rules
                                                                            or because it amounts to an inadequate statement of
                         (Case C-318/99)                                    reasons.
                         (1999/C 314/08)                                3. The Commission’s infringement of the rules governing the
                                                                            assessment of the aid in question and its fundamental
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   failure to evaluate the general compatibility of the measures
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                referred to above with the objectives and aims pursued as
Communities on 26 August 1999 by the Italian Republic,                      a whole by the sectoral plans undoubtedly influenced the
represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by                 decision to carry out an ‘in depth’ examination of the
Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address                     measures taken, resulting in an incorrect approach which
for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue                     ultimately had a negative effect on the conclusions arrived
Marie-Adelaïde.                                                             at by the Commission.