CELEX: C1997/040/50
Language: en
Date: 1997-02-08 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 19 October 1996 by Moccia Irme SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-164/96)

8 . 2 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 40/21
— infringement of the second paragraph of Article 25 of                conversion of plant to economic activities other than steel
      the Staff Regulations, inasmuch as the decision                  production . Under that legislation, aid is granted to
      rejecting the candidature in issue is vitiated by a              undertakings which reduce their productive capacity by
      complete absence of any statement of reasons,                    destroying plant . By decision of 12 December 1994, the
                                                                       Commission approved the abovementioned provisions .
— illegality of the vacancy notice referred to above, in               Pursuant to the legislation in question , the Italian
      that it does not mention the qualifications required for         authorities notified in September 1995 the provision of a
                                                                       contribution   of Lit    13 509 000 000    for the definitive
      the post to be filled and thereby enabled the
       appointing authority, when making the appointment in            cessation of steel production by the applicant and the
       issue, to stipulate, as decisive criteria , qualifications      closure of the relevant undertaking and the destruction of
       which had not been specified in that notice,                    plant resulting in capacity reductions of 288 000 tonnes in
                                                                       steel and 165 000 tonnes of hot-rolled products .
— infringement of Articles 7 ( 1 ), 27 and 45 ( 1 ) of the
       Staff Regulations. In advancing this plea , the applicant       By the contested decision , adopted on the basis of the
       claims that the appointing authority did not act in the         Steel Aid Code, the Commission declared the aid intended
       matter solely in the interest of the service, did not seek      for, inter alia, the applicant undertaking, to be
       to secure the highest standard of ability and did not           incompatible , since it considered that aid for closures must
       consider the comparative merits of, and reports on,             be granted only to undertakings which have regular
       the candidates . He states in that regard that, even if         production on the steel market.
       such a comparative analysis had been carried out, it
       would still have been apparent that there has been a
       manifest error of assessment and a breach of the                The applicant claims first of all that, where undertakings
       principle of the protection of legitimate expectations .        do not merely suspend production temporarily but cease
                                                                       production definitively, they no longer satisfy the
                                                                       conditions laid down in Article 80 and thus of Article 4 ( c )
                                                                       of the Treaty. It follows therefrom that by regulating and
                                                                       limiting by way of the Steel Aid Code national state
                                                                       contributions granted to persons no longer subject to the
                                                                       obligations arising from the ECSC Treaty, the defendant
Action brought on 19 October 1996 by Moccia Irme SpA                   has legislated in a matter not provided for in that Treaty.
    against the Commission of the European Communities                 Hence, the second paragraph of Article 4 of the Code is
                          ( Case T-164/96 )                            unlawful .
                             ( 97/C 40/50 )
                                                                       The applicant further alleges that the principle of equal
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                      treatment has been breached . It should be noted in this
                                                                       regard that, where closure is partial, the incentive may be
 An action against the Commission of the European                      granted for the closure of a plant which is suitable solely
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                      for production , while a steel undertaking which has only
 Instance of the European Communities on 19 October                     one plant is required to have regularly manufactured steel
 1996 by Moccia Irme SpA, whose registered office is in                 products up to the date of notification of the aid scheme .
 Naples ( Italy ), represented by Emilio Cappelli , Paolo de            Moreover, if an undertaking is in the course of adapting
 Caterini and Andrea Bandini, of the Rome Bar, with an                  its plant for industrial waste disposal and is doing so
 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   because it is required by law, it cannot be criticized for
 Charles Turk, 13 B, Avenue Guillaume .                                 suspending production .
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                            As regards breach of the principle that legislation must be
                                                                        published and cannot be retroactive, the applicant
                                                                        maintains that the defendant cannot fulfil such essential
 — annul, pursuant to Articles 33 and 36 of the ECSC
        Treaty, the Commission Decision of 30 July 1996 —               requirements by introducing and applying in 1996 , that is
        C(96 ) 2385 final, and                                          subsequently and for specific cases, criteria for interpreting
                                                                        the Code with the aim of regulating the 1993 steel
                                                                        production of those undertakings .
 — order the Commission to pay the costs .
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Finally, the applicant states that the Commission, by
                                                                         applying unjustifiably restrictive parameters when
                                                                         assessing aid to closure while at the same time rejecting
  In 1994, the Italian Government notified to the                        the alternative criterion of ' suitability for production',
  Commission Law No 481 of 3 August 1994 and the                         proposed by the Italian authority, has disregarded the
  Decree of the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Crafts               objectives which its discretionary powers are intended to
  No 683 of 12 October 1994, both of which were intended                 achieve, and has therefore misused its powers .
  to promote the implementation of a plan to restructure the
  distribution of the national steel industry by means of
  assistance in the closure of production units and the