CELEX: C2001/227/56
Language: en
Date: 2001-08-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-118/01: Action brought on 31 May 2001 by Diputación Foral de Bizkaia against the Commission of the European Communities

11.8.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 227/29
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    article. In the applicant’s view, the present case does not
                                                                               involve any selective advantage of the type which is
—     annul the Commission’s decision not to promote him to                    inherent in all aid, at least as regards the amounts paid to
      grade A6 in the course of the 2000 promotion procedure;                  FGV, the consideration for which was the provision of a
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   maritime transport service.
                                                                         —     Misinterpretation of the concept of aid within the mean-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                ing of the abovementioned article, inasmuch as the
                                                                               Commission states that the amounts paid in return for
In support of his action, the applicant pleads a failure to                    travel vouchers did not correspond to any actual need of
provide a statement of reasons, as required by Article 25 of                   the applicant, since they had not yet been used as at the
the Staff Regulations, and also infringement of Article 45 of                  date when the contested decision was adopted. The
the Staff Regulations and breach of the principle of equal                     applicant asserts in that regard that the travel vouchers
treatment and the principle that officials should have reason-                 do not have to be used within any specific period
able career prospects. The applicant bases his claim, inter alia,              and that the purchase of them constituted a normal
on the absence of a staff report.                                              commercial transaction.
                                                                         —     Breach of the right to property enshrined in Article 295
                                                                               EC, inasmuch as the contested decision obliges the
                                                                               contractor providing the transport service to refund all
                                                                               the amounts received, on the basis of the non-utilisation
                                                                               of the vouchers purchased. The applicant states that the
Action brought on 31 May 2001 by Diputación Foral                             imposition of that obligation entails a de facto restriction
de Bizkaia against the Commission of the European                              on the capacity to conclude contracts which goes beyond
                          Communities                                          what is permitted by the Community rules governing
                                                                               State aid.
                        (Case T-118/01)
                                                                         —     Absence or insufficiency of a statement of reasons for the
                        (2001/C 227/56)                                        decision, inasmuch as it does not show that the 1995
                                                                               Agreement has any real effect on competition and intra-
                                                                               Community trade.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         —     Misinterpretation of Article 87(2)(a) EC, inasmuch as the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      Commission, having acknowledged that the aid benefits
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     individual consumers with special needs and may there-
European Communities on 31 May 2001 by Diputación Foral                       fore be regarded as aid having a social character, goes on
de Bizkaia, established in Bilbao (Spain), represented by                      to state, without producing any evidence in support, that
Marta Morales Isasi and Ignacio Saenz-Cortabarria Fernández,                  the condition laid down by the Treaty (namely, the
abogados.                                                                      absence of discrimination related to the origin of the
                                                                               products concerned) is not fulfilled.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 29 November 2000
      on the aid scheme implemented by Spain in favour of the            In the alternative, in the event that the Court of First Instance
      shipping company Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya (OJ L 89 of              considers that — as the contested decision maintains — the
      29 March 2001, p. 28);                                             1995 Agreement in itself constitutes State aid in favour of
—     annul Article 2 of that decision in so far as it orders the        FGV within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, the applicant
      recovery of ESP 985 500 000 together with interest                 asserts that it is lawful aid (existing aid), since the Kingdom of
      thereon;                                                           Spain has not infringed the obligation laid down in the final
                                                                         sentence of Article 93(3) of the Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC).
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                             Given that what is involved is lawful aid, Article 14(1) of
                                                                         Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down
                                                                         detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          does not permit its recovery, and Article 2 of the decision is
                                                                         therefore null and void.
The applicant bases its action on the following pleas:
—     Infringement of Article 87(1) EC, on account of the
      incorrect assessment made by the Commission in con-
      sidering, from the outset, that all the amounts granted to
      Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya (FGV) under the 1995 Agree-
      ment constitute State aid within the meaning of that