CELEX: C1995/208/07
Language: en
Date: 1995-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-156/95)

12 . 8 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 208/3
           EEC/USA agreement concluded under GATT, if it is              Action brought on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of
           found that the contested Regulation is based on               Belgium against the Commission of the European
           those provisions .                                                                         Communities
                                                                                                  ( Case C-155/95 )
  — As regards the improper exclusion of the overshoot of                                            ( 95/C 208/06 )
       the MGA by the Portuguese producers from the
       calculation of the overall overshoot of the Specific Basic
       Area allocated to the Community as a whole :                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
       — The exclusion of Portugal from the benefit of                   European Communities on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of
           weighting of the overshoot of the Specific Base Area          Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Director of
           in the Community as a whole has no basis in Article           Administration in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign
           5 ( 1 ) ( f) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1765/92 , as            Trade and Cooperation with Developing Countries, acting
           amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No 232/94 which                 as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
           applied the Blair House Agreement within the                  Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins .
           Community; it infringes Article 6 of that agreement;
           it also contravenes the principle of equality as
           between the Member States regarding enjoyment of              The applicant claims that the Court should :
           the benefits deriving from Community legislation,
           according to which no exclusion of any of them is             — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 479/95 of
           justified; and the exclusion is discriminatory in that it           1 March 1995 introducing transitional measures for the
           is based on the nationality of certain producers .                  application of the tariff quota arrangements for the
                                                                               import of bananas as a result of the accession of Austria,
  (•) OJ No L 36 , 16 . 2 . 1995 , p . 2 .                                     Finland and Sweden for the second quarter of 1995 and
  (2 ) OJ No L 181 , 1 . 7. 1992 , p . 12,                                     order the Commission to pay the costs ( x ).
  (•') OJ No L 30, 3 . 2 . 1994 , p . 7.
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are
                                                                         the same as those relied on against Regulation ( EC )
                                                                         No 3303/94 in Case C-71 /95 ( 2 ).
                                                                         (») OJ No L 49 , 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . 18 .
  References for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                   ( 2 ) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 , p. 13 .
  Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, by
  orders of that court of 25 March 1995 ( C-154/95 ), 3 April
  1995 ( C-157/95 ), 3 May 1995 ( C-174/95 ), 27 April 1995
  ( C-175/95 ) and 10 May 1995 ( C-176/95 ) in the criminal
  proceedings pending before that court against Isidoro
  Narducci, Fulvio Smaldone, Siro Mattei, Bruno Belli and
                           Armando Scrocca
  ( Cases C-154/95 , C-157/95 , C-174/95 , C-175/95 and
                                                                         Action brought on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of
                                C-176/95 )
                                                                         Belgium against the Commission of the European
                             ( 95/C 208/05 )                                                          Communities
                                                                                                  ( Case C-156/95 )
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                             ( 95/C 208/07 )
  European Communities by orders of the Pretura
  Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distraccata di Tivoli ( Rome
  District Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division ) of 25 March             An action against the Commission of the European
  1995 ( C-154/95 ), 3 April 1995 ( C-157/95 ), 3 May 1995               Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
  ( C-174/95 ), 27 April 1995 ( C-175/95 ) and 10 May 1995               European Communities on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of
  ( C-176/95 ), which were received at the Court Registry on             Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Flead of Department
  15 May 1995 ( C-154/95 ), 19 May 1995 ( C-157/95 ), 6 June             at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and
  1995 ( C-174/95 and C-175/95 ) and 7 June 1995                         Cooperation with Developing Countries, with an address
  ( C-176/95 ), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                 for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des
  proceedings pending before that court against Isidoro                  Girondins .
£
  Narducci, Fulvio Smaldone, Siro Mattei, Bruno Belli     .
                                                               and
  Armando Scrocca on questions which are identical with
  those in Cases C-135/95 , C-140/95 and C-151/95 (*).                   The applicant asks the Court to annul Commission
                                                                         Regulation ( EC ) No 510/95 of 7 March 1995 on the
  (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                         exceptional allocation of a quantity additional to the tariff
                                                                         quota for imports of bananas during the first quarter of
                                                                          1995 as a result of tropical storm Debbie (*) and order the
                                                                          Commission to pay the costs .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 208/4                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12 . 8 . 95
The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are                        return on an investment, the behaviour of an investor
the same as those relied upon with regard to Regulation                           operating under normal market conditions . The
(EC ) No 2791 /94 in Case C- 9/95 (2 ).                                           estimated costs of insolvency ( shareholder loans,
                                                                                  dismantling installations, ground clearance ) would
(•) OJ No L 51 , 8 . 3 . 1995 , p . 8 .                                           be clearly higher than the cost of withdrawing and
( 2 ) OJ No C 54 , 10 . 3 . 1995 , p . 9 .                                        compensating for losses . The desire to protect an
                                                                                  image must also be included as falling under the
                                                                                  criterion of return on investment in its widest sense .
                                                                                  Moreover, when making a comparison with the
                                                                                  conduct of a hypothetical pri\*ate investor regard
                                                                                  must also be had to the situation in the particular
Action brought on 22 May 1995 by the Federal Republic of                          Member State ; the particular social, legal and
Germany against the Commission of the European                                    economic conditions in the Federal Republic of
                              Communities                                         Germany, like the principle enshrined in the Basic
                           ( Case C-158/95 )                                      Law that ownership involves social responsibility,
                                                                                  must not be disregarded,
                             ( 95 /C 208/08 )
                                                                             — the payment of DM 20 million to the
An action against the Commission of the European                                  Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH is the making available of
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                        risk capital in accordance with normal investment
European Communities on 22 May 1995 by the Federal                                practice under market conditions,
Republic of Germany, represented by Dr Ernst Roder,
Ministerialrat, Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs,                        — the sum of DM 56 million for particular items of
D-53107 Bonn .
                                                                                  expenditure was covered by the Commission's
                                                                                  approval of the support measures in August
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                      1988/June 1989 . The basis for those measures was
                                                                                  the 1987 Framework Agreement, of which the
1 . declare void the Commission's decision of 4 April 1995                        Commission was aware, and the agreement in it to
      concerning a proposed State aid by the Federal State of                     transfer the assets without burdens of the past
      Bavaria      to    the     EGKS-Stahlunternehmen       Neue                 ('Altlasten'). It is a misuse of powers for the
      Maxhiitte Stahlwerke GmbH, Sulzbach-Rosenberg, and                          Commission now to claim that the aids concerned
      Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH , Meitingen-Herbertshofen                              are not capable of approval ,
       ( COM(95 ) 814 final );
                                                                         — breach of the principle of proportionality: the financial
2 . order the defendant to pay the costs .                                   measures in question have only minimal effects on the
                                                                             Community steel market. The undertaking's share of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          total crude steel production in the ECSC was 0,2 % in
                                                                              1993 . The undertaking's range of products has hardly
— Insufficient statement of reasons ( Article 15 , first                     any supraregional importance .
      paragraph, of the ECSC Treaty): the Bavarian
      Government has explained on numerous occasions that
      the proposed payment to the pro rata loss compensation
      is an act of a shareholder voluntarily introducing its own
      capital ( in order to increase capital reserves for the
      purpose of setting them off against the loss carry-over ).         Action brought on 22 May 1995 by the Commission of the
      The Commission refuses to regard the cases given by                   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
      way of example as adequate proof that taking over losses
      in order to protect an image is the conduct of an investor                                 ( Case C-159/95 )
      operating under market conditions . The Commission                                           ( 95/C 208/09 )
      also starts out from incorrect findings of fact and
      wrongly evaluates the facts,                                       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
— infringement of the right to be heard : The Commission
      has not heard the views of the Bavarian Government as
                                                                         22 May 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Maria Kondou Durande, of
      regards its intention to treat the injection by Bavaria as a       its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
      ' lost subsidy' ( verlorener ZuschuS ); in its notice OJ No
                                                                         at the office of Yiorgos Kremlis, of its Legal Service, Wagner
      C 377, p. 3 it had found that in order to privatize the
      State 's shares the Bavarian Government intended to
                                                                         Centre, Kirchberg.
      make a pro rata contribution to compensate for losses as
      an 'injection' into the equity of the company,                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
— infringement of Article 4 ( c ) of the ECSC Treaty:                    — declare that, by omitting to adopt and communicate to
                                                                              the Commission within the requisite period of time the
      — the injection of capital of DM 125,7 million in order                 laws, regulations and administrative provisions
           to compensate for losses is, from the point of view of             necessary in order to comply with Council Directive