CELEX: C1998/299/69
Language: en
Date: 1998-09-26 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 20 July 1998 by RJB Mining plc against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-110/98)

C 299/38              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26.9.98
In support of his application he argues, inter alia:                Communities on 13 July 1998 by Jean Lesueur, resident in
                                                                    Brussels, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique
Ð that the author of the decision lacked jurisdiction or            Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the
    that the decision lacks any constitutional or legal basis       Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
    in that the defendant is, on the basis of a simple              the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de
    declaration which does not constitute an amendment              Cessange.
    or provision having the force of primary law,
    purporting to enact a piece of delegated legislation            The applicant claims that the Court should:
    which it is not constitutionally authorised to adopt.
    Furthermore, the applicant argues that there is a
                                                                    Ð annul the Council decision of 6 October 1997 refusing
    discrepancy between the scope of the declaration,
                                                                         the request for refund of that part of the pension
    which presumably constitutes the basis of the disputed
                                                                         rights transferred to the Community pensions regime
    decision, and the decision itself, in that the decision is
                                                                         which was not taken into consideration in the
    general in nature,
                                                                         calculation of the pensionable service to be taken into
                                                                         account pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the
Ð breach of Articles 11, 12, 16 and 17 of the Staff                      Staff Regulations,
    Regulations in so far as the disputed decision institutes
    security screening by the national authorities and
                                                                    Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
    withdraws the appointing authority's autonomous
    power to adopt a decision in the event that the
    national authorities' opinion is negative and places            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    officials and employees affected by such screening in a
    position of dependence. Similarly, both Article 23 of           The pleas in law and main arguments are those already
    the Staff Regulations and the Protocol on Privileges            raised in Case T-103/98 Kristensen v. Council (1).
    and Immunities of the European Communities have,
    according to the applicant, been ignored in so far as
    they provide for a legal system of official immunity in         (1) See page 36 of this Official Journal.
    relation to the accomplishment of tasks entrusted to
    officials,
Ð breach of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations in so far
    as the disputed decision provides for the constitution
    of a security file in addition to the single file referred      Action brought on 20 July 1998 by RJB Mining plc
    to in Article 26,                                                  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                             (Case T-110/98)
Ð breach of Article 24 of the Treaty establishing a single                                    (98/C 299/69)
    Council and a single Commission of the European
    Communities of 8 April 1965, and of the Council
                                                                                    (Language of the case: English)
    decision of 23 June 1981 establishing a concertation
    procedure, breach of essential procedural requirements
    and hierarchy of legal sources in so far as the disputed        An action against the Commission of the European
    decision, which is a simple decision, implicitly                Communities was brought before the Court of First
    purports to amend several provisions of the Staff               Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 1998
    Regulations which are statutory in nature. In                   by RJB Mining plc, represented by Mark Brealey and
    particular, there was no prior proposal by the                  Jonathan Lawrence, with an address for service in
    Commission neither were the institutions consulted.             Luxembourg at the offices of Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð
                                                                    10, rue Mathias Hardt, boite postale 39.
(1) OJ L 140, 12.5.1998, p. 12.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð annul the Commission Decision of 10 June 1998
                                                                         relating to financial interventions from Germany to
                                                                         the coal industry in 1997, which purports to authorise
Action brought on 13 July 1998 by Jean Lesueur against                   Germany to grant aid to its coal industry, and
             the Council of the European Union
                       (Case T-107/98)                              Ð order that the Commission pay the costs of the action,
                        (98/C 299/68)                                    including those of the applicant.
               (Language of the case: French)                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Council of the European Union was             The applicant is an independently owned coal-mining
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          company incorporated in England and Wales. Its major
 ---pagebreak--- 26.9.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 299/39
customers are the UK electricity power generators, but it               aid to mines which, on the applicant's own
is also trying to find a market for its coal overseas, in               calculations and those of its advisers, can never be
particular in Germany and Spain. On 10 June 1998, the                   viable. Second, the effect of the aid is contributing
Commission adopted the contested Decision which was                     towards reducing permanently the production capacity
addressed to Germany. Article 1 of the Decision purported               of the lowest cost large-scale producer of steam coal in
to approve operating aid of DEM 6 299 million under                     the Community and the producer with the best (if not
Article 3 of the Code (1), closure aid of DEM 3 205                     the only) long-term prospects of viability having
million under Article 4 of the Code, operating aid of                   regard to current world market conditions.
DEM 87 million of the Code to maintain underground
miners, aid of DEM 200 million to cover exceptional
                                                                   (1) Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December
losses under Article 5 of the Code to Ruhrkohle AG,
                                                                       1993, establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal
Saarbergwerke AG, Preussag Anthrazit GmbH and Sophia                   industry (OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12).
Jacob GmbH and, finally, aid of DEM 609,2 million to
cover exceptional costs under Article 5 of the Code to
Ruhrkohle AG, Saarbergwerke AG and Sophia Jacob AG,
enabling those companies to cover the cost which result
and have resulted from the restructuring of the coal
industry and which do not relate to current production.
                                                                   Action brought on 20 July 1998 by RJB Mining plc
The applicant claims to be gravely concerned by this                  against the Commission of the European Communities
decision, as the British coal industry has over the last 10
years undergone massive restructuring and rationalisation.                                 (Case T-111/98)
                                                                                            (98/C 299/70)
The applicant seeks annulment of the contested decision
on the grounds of:
                                                                                   (Language of the case: English)
Ð lack of competence: the Code expressly provides that
    no aid may be granted until it has been approved by            An action against the Commission of the European
    the Commission. In breach of this requirement, the             Communities was brought before the Court of First
    Commission on 10 June 1998 apparently purported to             Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 1998
    approve retroactively aid which had already been               by RJB Mining plc, represented by Mark Brealey and
    granted by the German Government in 1997,                      Jonathan Lawrence, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the Offices of Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð
                                                                   10, rue Mathias Hardt, boite postale 39.
Ð lack of reasoning: despite the requirement of
    transparency on the ECSC Treaty, the contested
    Decision fails to explain the basis on which the aid
    was granted. Under the Code, operating aid can only            The applicant claims that the Court should:
    be granted if an undertaking or production unit has a
    reasonable prospect of achieving viability within the
    foreseeable future, yet the contested Decision contains        Ð annul the Commission Decision of 3 June 1998
    no facts which would enable the applicant to verify                 relating to financial interventions from Spain to the
    the viability of any mine. Similarly, the Code provides             coal industry from 1994 to 1998, which purport to
    that closure aid can only be granted if the relevant                authorise Spain to grant aid to its coal industry, and
    production      unit   will   (save     in   exceptional
    circumstances) close at a date prior to 2002. The
    contested Decision does not specify any dates for
    closure of production units. Moreover, the contested           Ð order that the Commission pay the costs of the action,
    Decision implicitly rejects, without reasons, a                     including those of the applicant.
    complaint field with the Commission by the applicant
    on 5 May 1998,
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð infringement of the principle of good administration:
    the applicant formally complained about the grant of
                                                                   The applicant is the same as in Case T-110/98 (application
    the German aid on 5 May 1998. On 10 June 1998 the
                                                                   for the annulment of the Commission Decision of 10 June
    Commission acknowledged receipt of the complaint
                                                                   1998 relating to financial interventions from Germany to
    and stated that the applicant would be kept informed.
                                                                   the coal industry in 1997).
    Yet on the same day the Commission adopted the
    contested Decision,
                                                                   On 3 June 1998 the Commission adopted the three
Ð manifest infringement of the Treaty and the Code:                contested Decisions which were addressed to the Kingdom
    First, the contested Decision has purported to approve         of Spain: the first Decision relates to aid from Spain to its