CELEX: C2004/021/85
Language: en
Date: 2004-01-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-381/03: Action brought on 14 November 2003 by Izar Construcciones Navales SA against Commission of the European Communities

24.1.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 21/41
Action brought on 20 November 2003 by Korn-OG                             —    The Commission must accept liability for the recipient
Foderstof Kompagniet against the Commission of the                             country’s fault on contractual principles, since it used the
                     European Communities                                      recipient country for taking delivery. The delay is there-
                                                                               fore within its sphere of responsibility. The Commission
                                                                               has in principle recognised the applicant’s entitlement to
                          (Case T-380/03)                                      compensation.
                           (2004/C 21/84)
                                                                          —    The basis of the applicant’s claim in respect of delay is
                                                                               the wrongful declaration that the security deposited by
                   (Language of the case: German)                              the applicant was forfeit. The Commission fulfilled its
                                                                               obligations towards the applicant only after a year had
                                                                               elapsed. Admittedly, the applicant did not have direct
                                                                               contact in this regard with the Commission, but the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      national payments office, the Bundesanstalt für Landwirt-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on                         schaft und Ernährung, acted in this respect merely as the
20 November 2003 by Korn-OG Foderstof Kompagniet, of                           payments office of the Commission.
Viby (Denmark), represented by L. Harings and K. Landry,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1.    order the defendant to pay to the applicant:
      —     82 702,12 EUR
      —     10 394,00 USD, together with interest at the rate of          Action brought on 14 November 2003 by Izar Construc-
            5 % above the applicable Danish minimum lending               ciones Navales SA against Commission of the European
            rate from 1 November 1999, or alternatively since                                      Communities
            the lodging of the application, and
      —     828,73 USD;                                                                          (Case T-381/03)
2.    order the defendant, in accordance with Article 87(2) of
      the Rules of Procedure of the Court, to pay the applicant’s
                                                                                                  (2004/C 21/85)
      costs.
                                                                                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant’s claim for compensation from the Commission
is brought under Article 238 EC and concerns a contract for
the supply of rye for breadmaking to the Russian Federation.              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
In addition, it makes a claim on account of delay.                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 14 November 2003 by Izar
                                                                          Construcciones Navales SA, whose registered office is at
                                                                          Madrid, represented by Jaime Folguera Crespo, Edurne Navarro
The applicant’s arguments are as follows:
                                                                          Varona and Alfonso Gutiérrez Hernández, lawyers.
—     It was awarded a contract for delivery of rye for bread-
      making to the Russian Federation in accordance with
      Regulation (EC) No 111/1999. It has suffered consider-              The applicant claims that the Court should:
      able damage due to the unwarranted delay in the
      acceptance of the delivery by the recipient country. The
      delay arose because the Russian Federation complained               —    Annul, pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty, the
      initially of defects in the goods delivered. However, after              decision of the Commission of 27 May 2003 on the
      closer investigation by the Commission, no such defects                  suspected aid granted to the Spanish State shipyards, and
      were found. The applicant had to fund the sums paid to
      the Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung in
      Deutschland (BLE, German Federal Institute for Agri-                —    Order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by IZAR
      culture and Food) for a period of approximately one year.                in these proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 21/42                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          24.1.2004
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  incompatible with the common market merely because it
                                                                                 constitutes aid in addition to that authorised for the
                                                                                 Spanish shipyards by the aforementioned 1997 decision.
The applicant in this case, a subsidiary of the Spanish public             Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of
holding headed by the Sociedad Estatal de Participaciones                  proportionality and of the duty to state reasons for acts, in
Industriales (SEPI), which owns all the Spanish shipyards                  particular as regards, in the present case, the existence of State
belonging to the State, challenges the decision by which the               aid.
defendant institution has initiated the formal investigation
procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty with regard to
three cases of alleged aid consisting in the grant by SEPI to the          (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
civil shipyards in Cádiz and Juliana and to the Manises engines                down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
factory of loans amounting to EUR 194.4 million, a capital                     Treaty, OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.
injection from SEPI to AESA (Astilleros Españoles SA) of                   (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 of 2 June 1997 on aid to
EUR 252.4 million and compensation for losses paid by SEPI                     certain shipyards under restructuring, OJ 1997 L 148 , p. 1.
to the shipyards in Cádiz and Juliana and to the Manises
engines factory amounting to EUR 68.2 million. The same
decision also questions, according to the applicant, whether
certain aid authorised in 1997 in the same sector, in relation
to which the abovementioned aid ought to be considered
additional aid, is compatible with Community law.
                                                                           Action brought on 17 November 2003 by Izar Construc-
                                                                           ciones Navales SA against Commission of the European
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:                                                      Communities
                                                                                                    (Case T-382/03)
—     Infringement of Article 88 of the EC Treaty and of
      Regulations 659/1999 (1) and 1013/1997 (2), inasmuch
      as the contested decision, using as its legal basis Article 16                                 (2004/C 21/86)
      of Regulation No 659/1999, states that, were the aid
      authorised in 1997 to be considered illegal, steps must                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
      be taken for its recovery. The applicant submits in that
      respect that the Commission has unlawfully failed to
      apply to the aid in issue the procedure for existing aid
      provided for by Article 88(1) and Article 17 et seq of
      Regulation No 659/1999.                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 17 November 2003 by Izar
                                                                           Construcciones Navales SA, whose registered office is at
—     Breach of the principle that legitimate expectations must            Madrid, represented by Jaime Folguera Crespo, Edurne Navarro
      be protected, inasmuch as the contested decision does                Varona and Alfonso Gutiérrez Hernández, lawyers.
      not meet the applicant’s expectations regarding the
      legality and irrevocability of the aid authorised in 1997.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Breach of the principle of legal certainty as a result of            —     Annul, pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty, the
      the Commission’s having acted out of time and the                          decision of the Commission of 27 July 2003 on the
      retrospective application of a provision to a situation                    suspected aid granted to the Spanish State shipyards, and
      arising prior to its entry into force. In the view of the
      applicant, the power to recover the 1997 aid could only
      have been exercised within the period prescribed therefor,           —     Order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by IZAR
      that is to say before October 1999. That is so because                     in these proceedings.
      exercise of the abovementioned power is contingent on
      the result of the monitoring programmes provided for by
      Regulation No 1013/1997 and the 1997 decision, which
      came to an end on the abovementioned date.                           Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Manifest error of law, inasmuch as the contested decision            The applicant in this case, the same as that in Case T-381/03
      maintains that the alleged aid concerned thereby is                  IZAR, challenges the decision of the defendant by which it: