CELEX: C1995/248/37
Language: en
Date: 1995-09-23 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 19 July 1995 by The British Iron and Steel Producers' Association against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-150/95)

23 . 9 . 95          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 248/ 17
of the Treaty of Rome and to authorize the aid granted to           The applicant claims that the Court should :
CMF SUD and CMF by the Italian authorities in the form of
successive financial contributions .
                                                                    — annul in its entirety the Commission decision set out in
                                                                         its Notice C 25/94 ( ex N 11 /94 ) concluding that aid
According to the applicant, it is because of the public                 which the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg proposed
financing in favour of those two undertakings that, when                 granting to ProfilARBED SA conformed to Article 3 of
tenders were sought by the Marseilles Chamber of                         Commission Decision No 3855/91 /ECSC and was thus
Commerce and Industry in relation to certain works to be                 compatible with the common market,
carried out at Marseilles airport, the tender submitted by
CMF SUD was preferred to that submitted by the applicant.
The difference between the prices tendered by the two               — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action
companies was found upon comparison to amount to                         including those of the applicant.
33% .
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The Commission decided not to oppose the financial
contributions at issue, on the basis of commitments given by
the Italian authorities in the context of a privatization           The applicant, an association representing British Iron and
programme undertaken by Iritecna, the parent company of             Steel producers, challenges the Commission Decision ,
CMF SUD and CMF . Those commitments consisted in                    reproduced in Commission Notice C 25/94, declaring
particular of the liquidation of CMF SUD and of the                 compatible with the Common market an aid which
privatization of CMF by no later than 30 June 1995 .                the Luxembourg authorities proposed to grant to Arbed
                                                                    for the construction of a new electric steel plant at the
The applicant maintains that the contested aid is illegal ,         Esch-Shifflange steel complex, replacing the existing LDAC
since it was authorized in contravention of Article 93 ( 3 )        Steel complex. The contested Decision concludes that the
of the Treaty and such illegality cannot be regularized             aid is compatible with the common market because it is in
retroactively. According to the applicant, the Commission           conformity with Article 3 of the Fifth Steel Aid Code ( SAC ),
disregarded the conditions governing the grant of aid to            which authorizes the grant of aid for environmental
undertakings in difficulties, as defined in the strict approach     protection in certain circumstances .
taken in the ' Eighth Report on Competition Policy' and the
communication concerning 'New Community guidelines on               The applicant submits that the contested decision purports
State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty '.     to interpret Article 3 of the fifth SAC as providing that an aid
There was never any plausible aim of making the recipient           may be qualified as environmental aid where it is to be used
undertakings viable ; no requirement was imposed in                 for the construction of new plant, and that such an
relation to any serious recovery plan; and, lastly, those           interpretation is contrary to the plain and unambiguous
 undertakings have received aid on four occasions, whereas it       wording of Article 3 of the Fifth SAC, according to which
 should not have been necessary to provide restructuring aid        aid granted to steel undertakings for bringing them into line
 more than once .                                                   with new statutory environmental standards may be
                                                                    deemed compatible with the common market.
                                                                    The point of view of the Commission presupposes that the
                                                                    same principles of interpretation should be applicable to all
                                                                    forms of aid for environmental protection whether
                                                                    authorized under the EC Treaty or the ECSC Treaty .
                                                                    However, whereas the EC Treaty permits the granting of aid
 Action brought on 19 July 1995 by The British Iron and              by Member States in certain circumstances set out in
 Steel Producers ' Association against Commission of the             Article 92 , Article 4 ( c ) of the ECSC Treaty provides that all
                   European Communities                              subsidies or aids granted by States in any form whatsoever
                        Case T-150/95 )                              are to be prohibited .
                         ( 95/C 248/37 )
                                                                     On the other hand the SAC is, in itself, a derogation from the
                                                                     ECSC principle of prohibition of State aid, prompted by the
                Language of the case: English                        severe problems that ECSC undertakings had and have still
                                                                     to face . The applicant considers, therefore, on the basis of an
                                                                     overriding principle of law, that derogations from a Treaty
 An action against the Commission of the European                    principle should be interpreted restrictively and that the
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Commission may not seek to bring the Fifth SAC within the
 Instance of the European Communities on 19 July by The              EC framework on environmental aid by purporting to
 British Iron and Steel Producers' Association , represented         interpret Article 3 ( 1 ) of the Fifth SAC more broadly .
 by John Boyce and Philip Raven, Solicitors of Slaughter &
 May, London, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
 the Chambers of Wagner & Rukevina, 10a Boulevard de la
 Foire .