CELEX: C2004/300/89
Language: en
Date: 2004-12-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-375/04: Action brought on 17 September 2004 by Grandits GmbH and five others against the Commission of the European Communities

4.12.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 300/45
            
         Action brought on 17 September 2004 by Grandits GmbH and five others against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-375/04)
   (2004/C 300/89)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 September 2004 by Grandits GmbH, Kirchschlag (Austria), Scheuer-Fleisch GmbH, Ungerdorf (Austria), Tauernfleisch Vertriebs-GmbH, Flattach (Austria), Wech-Kärntner Truthahnverarbeitung GmbH, Glanegg (Austria), Wech-Geflügel GmbH, St. Andrä (Austria) and Johann Zsifkovics, Vienna (Austria), represented by J. Hofer and T. Humer, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the Commission's decision of 30 June 2004 (C(2004) 2037 final), concerning State Aid NN 34A 2000/Österreich ‘Qualitätsprogramme und das AMA-Biozeichen und das AMA-Gütesiegel’;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants first claim infringement of procedural rules. The Commission treated the measures which formed the subject-matter of the contested decision as notified aid, although Austria had given no such notification. The Commission infringed Article 4(4) of Regulation 659/1999, as it had no discretion and should have instituted the formal investigation procedure. The Commission infringed the duty to state reasons because it did not carefully and impartially examine all the legal and factual considerations brought to its notice by the applicants. A period of 52 months was disproportionate in the context of the preliminary investigation procedure and constituted an infringement of the general principle that proceedings should be of a reasonable duration.
   The applicants further claim infringement of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty. The Commission assumed, on the basis of insufficient enquiries and factual findings, that the requirements for the exception under Article 87(3)(c) EC were fulfilled.
   Finally, the applicants claim that there has been infringement of the prohibition on implementation in accordance with the third sentence of Article 88(3) EC and Article 3 of Regulation No 659/99. There is, they maintain, a prohibition on implementing aids that have not been notified, and retrospective curing of the defect by the final decision is not permissible.