CELEX: C2005/132/61
Language: en
Date: 2005-05-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-136/05: Action brought on 30 March 2005 by EARL Salvat Père et Fils and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

28.5.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 132/34
            
         Action brought on 30 March 2005 by EARL Salvat Père et Fils and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-136/05)
   (2005/C 132/61)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 March 2005 by EARL Salvat Père et Fils, established in Saint-Paul de Fenouillet (France), Comité interprofessionnel des vins doux naturels et vins de liqueur à appellations contrôlées (CIVDN), established in Perpignan (France), and Comité national des interprofessionnels des vins à appellation d'origine, established in Paris (France), represented by Hugues Calvet and Olivier Billard, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul Articles 1.1 and 1.3 of the Commission's decision of 19 January 2005 concerning the ‘Plan Rivesaltes’ and the CIVDN parafiscal levies implemented by France;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision the Commission concluded that the set-aside premium per hectare financed by an inter-trade contribution in the context of the ‘Plan Rivesaltes’ and the promotional and operational activities of the controlled designations of origin ‘Rivesaltes’, ‘Grand Rousillon’, ‘Muscat de Rivesaltes’ and ‘Banyuls’ financed by inter-trade contributions constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC.
   The applicants seek for that decision to be annulled, submitting first that its statement of reasons is inadequate, in breach of Article 253 EC, and does not enable the applicants to understand the Commission's reasons for considering that the criteria relating to State aid defined in the case-law of the Court of Justice were satisfied in this case. The applicants also submit that the contested decision resulted from a breach of Article 87 EC, since the Commission did not show either that the measures in question were financed by means made available to the national authorities or that the inter-trade contributions, intended to finance the promotional and operational activities of the controlled designations of origin, were attributable to the State.