CELEX: C1999/160/48
Language: en
Date: 1999-06-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-62/99: Action brought on 2 March 1999 by Dominique Rafoni, court-appointed administrator, acting as liquidator of Société de distribution mécanique et d'automobiles (Sodima), against the Commission of the European Communities

C 160/26              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.6.1999
Action brought on 2 March 1999 by Dominique Rafoni,                      Action brought on 3 March 1999 by RJB Mining plc
court-appointed administrator, acting as liquidator of                     against the Commission of the European Communities
Société de distribution mécanique et d’automobiles (Sodi-
ma), against the Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties                                                                (Case T-63/99)
                         (Case T-62/99)                                                           (1999/C 160/49)
                        (1999/C 160/48)
                                                                                           (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               European Communities on 3 March 1999 by RJB Mining plc,
European Communities on 2 March 1999 by Dominique                        represented by Mark Brealey and Jonathan Lawrence, with an
Rafoni, court-appointed administrator, acting as liquidator of           address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt
Société de distribution mécanique et d’automobiles (Sodima),             & Medernach, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt.
residing at Aix en Provence (France), represented by Jean
Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service           The applicant claims that the Court should:
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4, rue
Béatrix de Bourbon.                                                      — annul the contested decision on the grounds set out in this
                                                                             application,
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action,
— annul the Commission’s decision of 5 January 1999,                         including those of the applicant.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The present application is directed against the Commission’s
On 1 July 1994 the applicant submitted to the Commission a               decision of 22 December 1998 [K(1998) 4569 endg.], on
complaint based on articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty and on               subsidies granted by the Federal Republic of Germany (‘Ger-
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 183/85 concerning the                     many’) to the mineral coal industry in 1999, which purports
imposition by the Peugeot company of a dealership system                 to authorise Germany to grant those subsidies.
incompatible with the exemption conditions laid down by that
regulation.
                                                                         According to the applicant, some, but not all, of the issues
In the present case, the applicant, by whom two actions have             raised in this application have been raised in Cases T-110/98 (1)
previously been brought for a declaration that the Commission            and T-12/99 (2), relating to aid paid to the German Coal
has failed to act (1), contests the Commission’s decision of             Industry for 1997 and 1998 respectively.
5 January 1999 definitively rejecting its complaint.
                                                                         The application essentially concerns article 4(c) of the ECSC
In support of its action for annulment, the applicant pleads:            Treaty and Decision 3632/93/ECSC (3), which lays down a
                                                                         code (‘the Code’) under which aid may be approved by the
— failure by the defendant institution to fulfil its obligations         Commission in derogation from article 4(c) aforesaid.
    to maintain and promote competition,
— failure to examine the complaint seriously and objectively,            The applicant submits that
— infringement of essential procedural requirements and                  — The aid in question does not comply with articles 2 to 9 of
    misuse of powers in the conduct of the procedure and the                 the Code, so that the Commission has no competence to
    handling of the evidence,                                                approve it under article 1(1) of the Code.
— infringement of the Treaty and manifest error of assess-               — The contested decision purports to approve aid to under-
    ment of the law,                                                         takings or production units which cannot be considered as
                                                                             viable. Even if, contrary to the applicant’s contention, there
— breach of the obligation to take a definitive decision within              is no obligation on the Commission to demonstrate
    a reasonable time.                                                       long-term viability of undertakings or production units,
                                                                             the defendant has committed a manifest error in failing to
(1) Cases T-190/95 (OJ C 333, 9.12.1995, p. 20) and T-45/96 (OJ              consider whether the reduction of production costs of
    C 145, 18.5.1996, p. 13).                                                recipient undertakings or production units is likely to
                                                                             achieve a degression of aid in the light of falling coal prices
                                                                             on international markets, as required by article 2 (1) of the
                                                                             Code. Finally, the contested decision purports to approve