CELEX: C2000/302/76
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-225/00: Action brought on 28 August 2000 by Andrea Gaul against the Commission of the European Communities

21.10.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 302/33
—     Excluding the fishing industry from the de minimis rule,           Action brought on 30 August 2000 by Porto di Venezia
      applicable in cases of State aid, amounts to failure to              scrl against Commission of the European Communities
      observe the principle of equal treatment as between the
      various sectors, at least where, as in the present case, the
      aid relates to social contributions charged by the State for                                 (Case T-228/00)
      the operation of services and not to investment costs
      freely incurred by the undertaking.
                                                                                                   (2000/C 302/77)
—     The modest scale of the applicant undertakings, their
      local nature and the damage which could be caused by
      repayment of the aid render unsustainable an argument
      claiming that the relief has an impact on trade between                                (Language of the case: Italian)
      Member States.
—     Article 87(3)(d) of the Treaty has been infringed inasmuch         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      as Chioggia and the Lagoon of Venice have special                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      cultural links with fishing that cannot be ignored.                European Communities on 30 August 2000 by Porto di
                                                                         Venezia scrl, represented by Francesco Munari, of the Genoa
                                                                         Bar.
(1) OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50.
(2) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the Commission decision of 25 November 1999
                                                                               on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of
                                                                               relief from social security contributions under Laws
                                                                               Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 in so far as it excludes from
Action brought on 28 August 2000 by Andrea Gaul                                Article 4 undertakings, such as the applicant, which find
  against the Commission of the European Communities                           themselves in circumstances identical to those of the
                                                                               undertakings mentioned in the aforementioned article,
                         (Case T-225/00)                                       and order the Commission to adopt any appropriate
                                                                               measure to comply with the judgment of this Court;
                         (2000/C 302/76)
                                                                         —     make any other order as the Court may see fit in order to
                                                                               ensure compliance with the judgment, as well as an order
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                               requiring the Commission to pay the costs incurred by
                                                                               the applicant.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 August 2000 by Andrea Gaul,
of Olching (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Christian Boetzkes, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg (Federal Republic
of Germany).
                                                                         The decision being contested in this action is the same as
The applicant claims that the Court should annul, pursuant to            that in Case T-218/00 Cooperativa Mareazzurro and Others
Article 231 EC, the decision of the Commission of the                    v Commission and T-221/00 Casino Municipale di Venezia
European Communities of 29 May 2000 not to include the                   v Commission (1).
applicant’s name in the list of suitable candidates following the
conclusion of the procedure in open competition
COM/A/12/98, field 01 (law).                                             In support of its application, the applicant, an undertaking
                                                                         entrusted by the public authorities with running the berthing
                                                                         facilities at the port of Venice, makes the following claims:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     Infringement of Articles 87 and 88 EC and of Article 7(2)
The applicant took part in the European Commission’s open
                                                                               of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March
competition COM/A/12/98 in the field of law and was not
                                                                               1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of
awarded the necessary marks in order for her name to be
                                                                               Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2).
included in the list of suitable candidates. By her claim, she
asserts that the marks awarded cannot be justified. On the
contrary, she proved to a sufficient standard in the tests that          —     Misuse of powers inasmuch as a manifest error has been
she possessed the requisite knowledge and abilities.                           committed and treating it differently cannot be justified.
                                                                         —     Failure to state reasons.