CELEX: C2002/261/34
Language: en
Date: 2002-10-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-252/02: Action brought on 21 August 2002 by the Brighton Marine and Palace Pier Company against the Commission of the European Communities

C 261/18              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26.10.2002
Action brought on 21 August 2002 by the Brighton                         claims that the Decision would erred in taking into account
Marine and Palace Pier Company against the Commission                    only the effect on competition that could arise from the
                of the European Communities                              operation of the heritage centre on the West Pier. Instead, the
                                                                         Decision should also take into account the effect on compe-
                                                                         tition and trade that could arise from the management and use
                        (Case T-252/02)                                  of the new shore end commercial buildings and the commercial
                                                                         space on the West Pier. According to the applicant, these new
                                                                         commercial developments would not take place without the
                        (2002/C 261/34)                                  funded restoration of the West Pier.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in
                                                                         concluding that if there was aid, it was compatible with the
                                                                         common market under Article 87(3)(d) of the EC Treaty.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                According to the applicant, the Commission failed to weigh
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               up the benefits of any cultural or heritage objective against the
European Communities on 21 August 2002 by the Brighton                   much larger purely commercial aspects. Furthermore, it failed
Marine and Palace Pier Company, Jarrow, Tyne and Wear                    to take into account the potential disadvantages for the
(United Kingdom), represented by C. Vajda QC and T. Usher,               applicant, Palace Pier, which is also an English Heritage listed
Solicitor.                                                               building, and relies solely on its commercial viability.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Decision of 9 April 2002 both in respect of the
      conclusions under Article 87(1) and Article 87(3)(d) of
      the EC Treaty;
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                         Action brought on 23 August 2002 by L against Com-
                                                                                    mission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  (Case T-254/02)
The applicant operates the Brighton Palace Pier. In the                                          (2002/C 261/35)
contested Decision, the Commission held that the restoration
of the Brighton West Pier did not involve state aid and
declared, in the alternative, any aid to be compatible with the                            (Language of the case: French)
common market. The applicant points out that the restoration
of the Brighton West Pier involves the participation of a private
partner, St. Modwen. This partner will, after the restoration,
exploit the pier and adjacent lands commercially. This would
create a direct competitor for the applicant since the West Pier,
which is situated only 1,2 kilometres away from the Palace               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pier, would then offer the same services and attractions as the          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
applicant currently offers.                                              European Communities on 23 August 2002 by L, residing in
                                                                         Brussels, represented by Jean Van Rossum, lawyers.
The applicant submits that the Commission erred in conclud-
ing that the measures did not favour St. Modwen. According               The applicant claims that the Court should:
to the applicant, the funding of the restoration gives St.
Modwen the opportunity to carry out a large commercial
development of a scale and in a locality which would not                 —     annul the decision of the Commission of 30 April 2002
otherwise be possible. This gives St. Modwen a competitive                     and the implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint of
advantage over the applicant.                                                  4 February 2002;
                                                                         —     order the defendant to compensate the applicant;
The applicant furthermore submits that the Commission erred
in concluding that the measures in issue would have no effect
on competition and intra community trade. The applicant                  —     order the defendant to pay the costs.