CELEX: C1999/314/18
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-30 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 1999 in Case T-110/98: RJB Mining plc v Commission of the European Communities (ECSC Treaty - State aid - Operating aid - Authorisation ex post facto of aid already paid - Improvement of viability of recipient undertakings for the purpose of Article 3 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC)

C 314/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        30.10.1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 9 September 1999
                                                                                                    of 9 September 1999
in Case T-110/98: RJB Mining plc v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)                                in Case T-127/98, UPS Europe SA v Commission of the
                                                                                                 European Communities (1)
(ECSC Treaty — State aid — Operating aid — Authoris-
ation ex post facto of aid already paid — Improvement of
viability of recipient undertakings for the purpose of                      (Competition — Action for failure to act — Commission’s
            Article 3 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC)                                   obligation to investigate — Reasonable period)
                           (1999/C 314/18)                                                             (1999/C 314/19)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                                 (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-110/98: RJB Mining plc, established in Harworth,
United Kingdom, represented by Mark Brealey, Barrister, of the
Bar of England and Wales, and Jonathan Lawrence, Solicitor,                 In Case T-127/98: UPS Europe SA, established in Brussels,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                represented by Tom R. Ottervanger, of the Rotterdam Bar, and
Arendt and Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v Com-                        Dirk Arts, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
mission of the European Communities (Agents: Paul F. Nemitz                 Luxembourg at the chambers of Loeff, Claeys and Verbeke,
and Nicholas Khan), supported by Federal Republic of German,                5 Rue Charles Martel v Commission of the European Com-
(Agents: Claus-Dieter Quassowski and Michael Schütte),                      munities (Agents: Barry Doherty and Klaus Wiedner) — Appli-
Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Rosario Silva de Lapuerta) and RAG                 cation for a declaration under Article 175 of the EC Treaty
Aktiengesellschaft, established in Essen, Germany represented               (now Article 232 EC) that the Commission has failed to act by
by Sven B. Völcker, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for               not having delivered a decision on the applicant’s complaint
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11                    lodged under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 17 of the Council
Rue Goethe — application for annulment of Commission                        of 6 February 1962 — First Regulation implementing
Decision 98/687/ECSC of 10 June 1998 on German aid to the                   Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition
coal industry for 1997 (OJ 1998 L 324, p. 30) — the Court                   1959-62, p. 87) objecting to certain anti-competitive practices
of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition)                     on the part of Deutsche Post AG, the Court of First Instance
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, C.W. Bellamy, J. Pirrung,             (Fourth Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President,
A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator,                 V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Adminis-
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September 1999,                trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September
in which it:                                                                1999, in which it:
1. Declares that the plea based on breach of the alleged prohibition        1. Declares that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations
     on giving ex post facto approval to aid paid without prior                  under the EC Treaty by failing either to initiate a procedure
     approval is unfounded;                                                      against the person who is the subject of the complaint lodged by
                                                                                 the applicant on 7 July 1994 or to adopt a definitive decision
2. Declares that the plea of infringement of Article 3 of Commission             rejecting that complaint following the observations of 2 February
     Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December 1993 estab-                         1998 on the notification to the applicant under Article 6 of
     lishing Community rules for State aid to the coal industry is               Regulation No 99/63/EEC of the Commission of 25 July 1963
     unfounded;                                                                  on the hearings provided for in Article 19(1) and (2) of Council
                                                                                 Regulation No 17;
3. Dismisses the application in so far as it is based on those two
     pleas;
                                                                            2. For the rest, dismisses the application;
4. Invites the parties to state their views, within a period to be fixed
     by the President of the Court of First Instance, on the further        3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
     steps to be taken in the proceedings;
5. Reserves the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.