CELEX: C1999/265/14
Language: en
Date: 1999-09-18 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 July 1999 in Case T-89/96, British Steel plc v Commission of the European Communities (ECSC - Action for annulment - Admissibility - State aid - Individual decision authorising State aid to a steel undertaking - Legal basis - Article 4(c) and Article 95, first paragraph, of the Treaty - Counterpart measures in exchange for public funding - No capacity reduction required - Principle of non-discrimination - Infringement of essential procedural requirements)

C 265/8               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.9.1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 4 March 1999                                                               of 7 July 1999
                                                                          in Case T-89/96, British Steel plc v Commission of the
in Case T-87/96: Assicurazioni Generali SpA and Unicredi-                                     European Communities (1)
  to SpA v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (ECSC — Action for annulment — Admissibility — State
(Concentration — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Joint                      aid — Individual decision authorising State aid to a steel
venture — Classification — Whether the decision finding                   undertaking — Legal basis — Article 4(c) and Article 95,
that a joint venture forms part of wider cooperation is                   first paragraph, of the Treaty — Counterpart measures in
definitive or preliminary — Criteria for identifying a concen-            exchange for public funding — No capacity reduction
trative joint venture: functional independence and no co-                 required — Principle of non-discrimination — Infringement
ordination between the undertakings concerned — Right of                                of essential procedural requirements)
the undertakings concerned to be heard — Statement of
                             reasons)
                                                                                                     (1999/C 265/14)
                        (1999/C 265/13)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        In Case T-89/96: British Steel plc, established in London,
                                                                          represented by William Sibree and Philip Raven, Solicitors,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
In Case T-87/96: Assicurazioni Generali SpA and Unicredito                Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 15 Côte d’Eich, supported by
SpA, whose registered offices are in Trieste and Treviso (Italy)          Hoogovens Staal BV. established at IJmuiden (Netherlands),
respectively, represented by Aurelio Pappalardo of the Trapani            represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar,
Bar, and Claudio Tesauro, of the Naples Bar, with an address              with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang,                Luc Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume v Commission of the
51 Rue Albert 1er v Commission of the European Communities                European Communities (Agents: Nicholas Khan and Paul
(Agents: Richard Lyal and Fabiola Mascardi), supported by the             Nemitz), supported by Irish Ispat Ltd, established at Haulbow-
Italian Republic (Agents: Professor Umberto Leanza and Ivo                line, Cobh (Ireland), represented by Richard Martin, Solicitor,
M. Braguglia) — application for annulment of the Commission               and Jeremiah Healy SC and David Barniville, of the Irish Bar,
decision in case No IV/M. 711 — Generali/Unicredito of                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
25 March 1996 concerning a procedure in implementation of                 Zeyen, Beghin & Feider, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel, and Ireland
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989                   (Agents: Michael A. Buckley and Alex Schuster) — Application
on the control of concentrations between undertakings (recti-             for annulment of Commission Decision 96/315/ECSC of
fied version, OJ 1990 L 257, p. 14) — the Court of First                  7 February 1996 concerning aid to be granted by Ireland to
Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of               the steel company Irish Steel (OJ 1996 L 121, p. 16) — the
B. Vesterdorf President, C.W. Bellamy, R.M. Moura Ramos,                  Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Compo-
J. Pirrung and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a            sition), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President and
judgment on 4 March 1999, the operative part of which is as               R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, V. Tiili, P. Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
follows:                                                                  A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgement
                                                                          on 7 July 1999, in which it:
1. The action is dismissed.
                                                                          1. Dismisses the action.
2. The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.                           2. Orders the applicant to pay its own costs, those of the defendant
                                                                               and those of Irish Ispat Ltd, intervener.
3. The intervener shall bear its own costs.
                                                                          3. Orders Ireland and Hoogovens Staal BV, interveners, to bear
                                                                               their own costs.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 233 of 10.8.1996.