CELEX: C2001/045/24
Language: en
Date: 2001-02-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-456/00: Action brought on 18 December 2000 by French Republic against Commission of the European Communities

C 45/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.2.2001
Action brought on 6 December 2000 by the Kingdom of                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                        (Case C-452/00)                                 —     annul the Commission Decision C(2000) 2754 final of
                                                                              20 September 2000 on State aid put into effect by France
                                                                              in the wine sector;
                         (2001/C 45/23)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European            —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Communities on 6 December 2000 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by J. van Bakel, of the European Law
Section in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 (1)
      of 29 September 2000 providing for the continued
      application of safeguard measures for imports from the
      overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products
      with EC/OCT cumulation of origin;                                 —     The Commission was wrong to base itself, in the contest-
                                                                              ed       decision,     on      Commission        Regulation
                                                                              No 1493/2000 (1). The aid was notified in February
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-
                                                                              1999 under Regulation No 822/87 (2). Although the
      ings.
                                                                              Commission decision was adopted in September 2000
                                                                              under the new Regulation No 1493/1999 (3), which
                                                                              entered into force on 21 July 1999, it was Regulation No
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               822/87 which was binding on the Member States until
                                                                              August 2000, that is to say during nearly the whole of
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in                   the period when the Commission investigated the aid.
Case C-180/00 (2). Article 109(2) of the OCT decision has also
been infringed inasmuch as the safeguard measures adopted
are not appropriate for removing the difficulties which the
Commission considers to be present.                                     —     (In the alternative) Incompatibility of the contested
                                                                              decision with Regulation No 1493/2000
(1) OJ 2000 L 246 of 30.09.2000, p. 64.
(2) OJ 2000 C 211 of 22.07.2000, p. 10.
                                                                              —     The Commission is wrong to find the French
                                                                                    aid incompatible on the ground that it does not
                                                                                    sufficiently reduce yields of the Ugni-blanc grape
                                                                                    variety. Contrary to what the Commission main-
                                                                                    tains, Regulation No 1493/1999 does not establish
                                                                                    a correlation between the conversion of land and
                                                                                    any obligation on the Member States to reduce yield
                                                                                    — and thus production — on non-converted land.
Action brought on 18 December 2000 by French Republic
    against Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case C-456/00)                                       —     Error in law: by requiring an ‘assurance that restruc-
                                                                                    turing of 1 000 hectares would be accompanied by
                                                                                    grubbing-up of an equivalent area’, the Commission
                         (2001/C 45/24)
                                                                                    adds a condition to the conversion of vineyards
                                                                                    provided for in Article 11 of Regulation
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                           No 1493/1999, whereas there is nothing in that
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                        Article to say that conversion of a given area must
Communities on 18 December 2000 by the French Republic,                             be accompanied by the grubbing-up of an equivalent
represented by G. de Bergues, head of sub-directorate at the                        area. Limitation of the right to replant on converted
Legal Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and                   surfaces provided for by Commission Regulation
by L. Bernheim, secretary for foreign affairs at the same                           No 1227/2000 (4), and in particular Article 13
ministry, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                          thereof, cannot be treated like the grubbing up of
Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8B Boulevard Joseph II.                           non-converted land.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.2.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 45/13
       —     The Commission is wrong to accuse the French                             by the Walloon Region, to Hermann Heye consti-
             authorities of not having taken account of the                           tuted aid by virtue of the fact that the Walloon
             capacity of the market to absorb new quantities of                       Region had made a capital contribution in favour of
             regional wines produced following the planned                            Verlipack Holding II, the Commission misinterpret-
             varietal conversion.                                                     ed the concept of State aid and prejudged the
                                                                                      substance of the file, in breach of Articles 87 and
                                                                                      295 EC. The SRIW acted in accordance with the
                                                                                      criterion of the private investor. Following the
                                                                                      example of the private partners (the Beaulieu Group
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1493/2000 of 10 July 2000
                                                                                      and the banks of the Verlipack Group), the SRIW,
    establishing the standard import values for determining the entry
    price of certain fruit and vegetables OJ 2000 L 170, p. 1.                        like the Walloon Region in the grant of its capital
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the                        contribution, behaved like a private investor in the
    common organization of the market in wine (OJ 1987 L 84, p. 1).                   procedure for examining the file and bearing in
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the                        mind information supplied by the Heye Group
    common organisation of the market in wine OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1.                    which had all the appearances of credibility for
(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000 of 31 May 2000                            the future of the Verlipack Group. The fact that
    laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regu-                   insolvency occurred 22 months after the public
    lation (EC) No 1493/1999 (OJ 2000 L 143, p. 1).                                   interventions were made cannot demonstrate a
                                                                                      posteriori that, in March 1997, the SRIW, like the
                                                                                      Walloon Region, did not act as a private investor.
                                                                                      The Heye Group is the actual debtor of the funds
                                                                                      lent by the SRIW. The use made by the Heye Group
                                                                                      of the funds placed at its disposal by the SRIW under
                                                                                      normal market conditions cannot be made subject
                                                                                      to examination by the Commission pursuant to the
                                                                                      State aid rules, and, a fortiori, cannot be classified as
                                                                                      aid on the ground that those funds were initially of
                                                                                      public origin and their final beneficiary did not
Action brought on 18 December 2000 by the Kingdom                                     remain the Heye Group.
of Belgium against the Commission of the European
                              Communities                                       —     By taking the view that the whole of the compulsory
                                                                                      loan of 27 March 1997 of the Heye Group consti-
                            (Case C-457/00)                                           tuted aid, the Commission misinterpreted the con-
                                                                                      cept of aid. The clause for abandoning the debt
                                                                                      presented a less significant risk than the Commission
                             (2001/C 45/25)                                           might think, since, despite the insolvency of the
                                                                                      three operating companies which occurred in Janua-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                             ry 1999, that clause cannot prevent the repayment
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          of the amount of the SRIW’s loan by reason of the
                                                                                      early rescission of that agreement invoked by the
Communities on 18 December 2000 by the Kingdom of
Belgium, represented by A. Snoecx, acting as Agent, and by                            SRIW before the conditions of the contested aban-
                                                                                      donment clause were met.
J.M. De Backer, G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                —     Concerning the loan of 28 March 1997, the Com-
                                                                                      mission contented itself with applying its reference
The Kingdom of Belgium claims that the Court should:                                  rate automatically without carrying out an examin-
                                                                                      ation of the particular circumstances of the case,
—     annul the Commission decision of 20 September 2000,                             although the Belgian authorities were asking it to do
       No C 40/99, entitled ‘State Aid in favour of Verlipack —                       so. By so doing, the Commission declined to exercise
       Belgium’;                                                                      the discretion conferred upon it by Article 87 EC.
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   —     In its examination of the capital contribution to
                                                                                      Verlipack Holding II, the Commission generalised
                                                                                      from interventions of a completely different legal
                                                                                      character, since it took into consideration the two
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                       loans granted by the SRIW to Hermann Heye as if
                                                                                      they had been direct capital contributions in favour
—      Infringement of Articles 87 and 295 EC                                         of Verlipack Holding II.
                                                                           —    Infringement of the duty to state reasons.
       —     By assuming that the loan of 28 March 1997 and
             the compulsory loan of 27 March 1997 granted by
             the Société Régionale d’Investissement de Wallonie
             (‘SRIW’), a limited liability company wholly owned