CELEX: C2002/274/29
Language: en
Date: 2002-11-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-316/02 P: Appeal brought on 10 September 2002 by Hĳos de Andrés Molina S.A. against the judgment delivered by the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 July 2002 in Case T-152/99 between Hijos de Andrés Molina S.A. and the Commission of the European Communities

C 274/18               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.11.2002
Appeal brought on 10 September 2002 by Hijos de                             HAMSA had no opportunity, during either the adminis-
Andrés Molina S.A. against the judgment delivered by the                    trative or the judicial procedure, to put forward its
Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of                        arguments concerning that new formulation by the Court
First Instance of the European Communities on 10 July                       of First Instance of the matter at issue, which amounted
2002 in Case T-152/99 between Hijos de Andrés Molina                        to breach of HAMSA’s right to a fair hearing. In its
 S.A. and the Commission of the European Communities                        submission, that fact constitutes a breach of procedure
                                                                            which adversely affects its interests within the meaning
                                                                            of Article 51 of the EEC Statute of the Court of Justice.
                        (Case C-316/02 P)
                                                                            Secondly, the appellant alleges that the Court of First
                                                                            Instance failed to analyse the aid granted to HAMSA in
                         (2002/C 274/29)                                    1994 in accordance with scheme N 462/94 which it
                                                                            regards as applicable.
                                                                       (b)  The rescue and restructuring aid granted on the basis of a
An appeal against the judgment delivered by the Fifth Chamber               restructuring plan was compatible with the common
(Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the                market:
European Communities on 11 July 2002 in Case T-152/99
between Hijos de Andrés Molina S.A. and the Commission of                   In its decision of 3 February 1999 the Commission stated
the European Communities was brought before the Court of                    that it had not received the HAMSA restructuring plan
Justice of the European Communities on 10 September 2002                    until 4 July 1997. None the less, in response to questions
by Hijos de Andrés Molina S.A. (HAMSA), represented by Luis                 asked by the Court of First Instance a few days before the
Manuel Olivencia Brugger and José Luis Ballester García-                    hearing, the Commission acknowledged that it had
Izquierdo, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                       received the restructuring plan before the Spanish auth-
                                                                            orities notified it of the aid on 1 July 1996. In actual fact,
                                                                            the restructuring plan was delivered by a Spanish official
                                                                            to a Community official in DG Agriculture in January
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            1996, but the Commission did not decide to initiate the
                                                                            procedure under Article 93(3) of the Treaty or to adopt
—     set aside in part the judgment of 11 July 2002, and rule              measures of any kind with regard to the plan and the aid
                                                                            granted in implementing it in accordance with the
                                                                            provisions of the directives relating to the rescuing and
      (a)   that the aid granted to HAMSA in 1994 was                       restructuring of undertakings in crisis. Later, on 29 April
            compatible with Community law, being compatible                 1997, that is to say, 14 months after the restructuring
            with the general aid scheme applicable;                         plan was notified, the Commission gave notice of the
                                                                            opening of the procedure, considering that the aid had
      (b) that the aid granted pursuant to the HAMSA restruc-               not been notified, when, following the Lorenz case-law,
            turing plan in December 1995 was compatible with                it ought to have been regarded as existing aid.
            Community law;
      (c)   uphold the remainder of the contested judgment of
            11 July 2002 which is not challenged in this appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the korkein Hallin-
                                                                       to-oikeus by order of that Court of 10 September 2002 in
(a)   The aid received by HAMSA in 1994 on the basis of a                     the appeal brought by Petri Mikael Manninen
      general aid scheme previously approved by the Com-
      mission was compatible with Community law:
                                                                                                (Case C-319/02)
      In its judgment the Court of First Instance introduced a
      new matter, extraneous to the proceedings and to the                                      (2002/C 274/30)
      dispute brought before it. Whereas the parties, HAMSA
      and the Commission, took the view that the aid granted
      in 1993 and 1994 was regulated by general aid schemes
      N 624792 and N 428/93, respectively, the Court of First
      Instance considered that schemes N 428/93 and N 462/             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      94 applied to the aid granted in 1993 and 1994,                  European Communities by order of the korkein Hallinto-
      respectively.                                                    oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court) of 10 September 2002,