CELEX: C2000/149/24
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-36/00: Action brought on 10 February 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

C 149/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.5.2000
— Infringement of Article 109(1) of the OCT Decision, so far                  7 June1990 on the freedom of access to information on
     as mixtures of cocoa and sugar (CN codes 1806 10 30                      the environment (1), and in particular Article 3(1) and (4)
     and 1806 10 90) are concerned: here too, the amounts in                  thereof, for failing to ensure that, within a period of two
     question are very small; if one extrapolates from the                    months after the request, the authorities of the Land
     Eurostat figures, one arrives at the figure of 15 278 tonnes             Schleswig-Holstein either provided the information
     for the whole of 1999. The suggestion that these mixtures                requested or refused the request.
     are ‘[imported] ... at prices below those at which Com-
     munity producers can sell comparable products’ is not               (2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
     supported by any evidence. The fact that the Commission
     also misused its powers with regard to the mixtures of
     cocoa and sugar is in particular also evident from the
     nature of the measure laid down in Article 2 of the                 Pleas in law and main arguments
     regulation. While it may be a relatively innocuous measure
     (provided that it is not employed by customs authorities            The Commission submits that the practice referred to in the
     for the purpose of carrying out obstructive checks), a              application does not comply with the requirements of Article
     customs surveillance mechanism such as that referred to             3 of Directive 90/313/EEC, because the word ‘respond’ in the
     in Article 2 has as its purpose to collect information in           first sentence of Article 3(4) must be interpreted as including,
     order to determine whether the imports in question may              on the one hand, the provision of the information requested
     disrupt the market. The Commission’s reasoning is based             or permission to inspect the information, and, on the other
     on false premises.                                                  hand, the refusal of a request. The time element is of crucial
                                                                         significance for the efficiency of the whole system under the
— Infringement of Article 253 EC: the reasons set out in                 directive. If an authority were merely required to give an
     recitals (1) through (5) are inadequate, internally inconsist-      interim answer within the two-month period, stating that
     ent and incomprehensible.                                           access to the information can be granted at a later date, the
                                                                         system would not be effective. The Commission maintains that
— Infringement of Article 109(2) of the OCT Decision and                 only its interpretation of Article 3(4) of the directive accords
     the principle of proportionality: should it none the less be        with the aim of the directive and the effectiveness of the
     necessary to fix a threshold price for imports of OCT               opportunities for the persons concerned to obtain legal
     sugar, it would have been much more logical to proceed              protection, which the directive seeks.
     on the basis of a minimum selling price than on that of a
     minimum cif import price.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.
(1) OJ 1999 L 294, p. 11.
                                                                         Action brought on 10 February 2000 by the Kingdom of
Action brought on 1 February 2000 by the Commission                      Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                                                   ties
                          lic of Germany
                                                                                                   (Case C-36/00)
                          (Case C-29/00)
                                                                                                  (2000/C 149/24)
                         (2000/C 149/23)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                    ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             Communities on 10 February 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain,
ties on 1 February 2000 by the Commission of the European                represented by Mr Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, acting as Agent,
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,              with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish
with an address for service at the office of Carlos Gómez de la         Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard E. Servais.
Cruz, a Member of the Legal Service of the European Com-
mission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The Commission claims that the Court should:                             1. Declare void the decision of the Commission of 26 October
                                                                              1999 declaring certain aid granted to publicly owned
(1) declare the Federal Republic of Germany in breach of                      Spanish shipyards incompatible with the common market
     its obligations under Council Directive 90/313/EEC of                    and ordering its recovery,
 ---pagebreak--- 27.5.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 149/15
2. Order the defendant institution to pay the costs.                     — (In the alternative) The PTA 58 billion paid is justified even
                                                                              if it is accepted that it cannot be paid alongside general tax
                                                                              credits. Breach of the principle that no one may renege on
                                                                              his own decisions (legitimate expectations) and manifest
                                                                              error of assessment: The PTA 58 billion granted was not
                                                                              calculated by reference to the 28 % of forecast losses of the
                                                                              shipyards from 1995 to 1998, but rather, an overall
                                                                              amount to be paid as aid was negotiated and granted.
Pleas in law and main arguments
— Improper procedure and breach of the principles of                     (1) of 2 June 1997 on aid to certain shipyards under restructuring —
    legitimate expectations, legal certainty and sound adminis-              OJ 1997 L 148, 6. 6. 1997, p. 1
    tration: if the incorporation (in late 1997) of shipyards into
    SEPI resulted in an immediate and automatic reduction in
    the aid granted to compensate for the loss of tax credits
    (from 1 August 1995 when the shipyards became part of
    a State organisation which was not considered a group
    covered by the tax consolidation system) then the Com-
    mission’s departments should not have acted as they did:
    they should either have advised the Kingdom of Spain of
    their interpretation of the situation or commenced the
    procedure for the review of certain aid declared compatible
    (‘existing aid’) pursuant to Article 88(1) EC and the case-
    law of the Court of Justice.
                                                                         Appeal brought on 11 February 2000 by Service pour le
                                                                         Groupement d’Acquisitions (SGA) against the judgment
                                                                         delivered on 13 December 2000 by the First Chamber of
— (In the alternative) Failure to state any reasons relating to          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
    the effects of the aid declared incompatible.                        in Joined Cases T-189/95, T-39/96 and T-123/96, brought
                                                                         by Service pour le Groupement d’Acquisitions (SGA)
                                                                             against Commission of the European Communities
— Breach of Article 92(1) and (3) of the EC Treaty (now
    Article 87(1) and (3) EC), of Council Regulation                                               (Case C-39/00 P)
    No 1013/97 (1) and of the principle of legitimate expec-
    tations:
                                                                                                   (2000/C 149/25)
    1. The PTA 58 billion in aid granted cannot be considered            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December
         in isolation, purely and simply as compensation for             2000 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
         the tax credits which the shipyards had to lose, but            the European Communities in Joined Cases T-189/95, T-39/96
         must be viewed as the outcome of overall negotiations.          and T-123/96, brought by Service pour le Groupement
         In failing to do so the Commission has breached                 d’Acquisitions (SGA) against Commission of the European
         Council Regulation 1013/97 and the principle of                 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
         legitimate expectations arising from its Decision defini-       European Communities on 11 February 2000 by Service pour
         tively authorising aid of a specific amount.                    le Groupement d’Acquisitions (SGA), represented by SCP
                                                                         Fourgoux & Associates, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4
                                                                         Rue Béatrix de Bourbon.
    2. The Commission’s interpretation of the limit on aid
         granted as a maximum breaches Article 92(3) of the
         EC Treaty and the principles of legal certainty and             The appellant claims that the Court should:
         legitimate expectations as it undermines the definitive
         nature of the Decision granting aid.
                                                                         — set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                              13 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-189/95, T-39/96
                                                                              and T-123/96;
    3. The Commission includes in the aid granted amounts
         paid under a general scheme which do not constitute
         aid. This breaches Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty.              — order the Commission to pay all the costs.