CELEX: C1997/318/41
Language: en
Date: 1997-10-18 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 11 July 1997 by Christopher Atkin and others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-205/97)

18 . 10. 97           I EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 318/21
3 . the demand that EPAC undertake work that is the                     ( d ) in any event, the Commission's interim decision,
       responsibility of the State;                                           inasmuch as it is radical, takes no account of the
                                                                              circumstances of the case and of the interests and
                                                                              values at issue, is in breach of the principles of good
4 . the failure of Silopor, Empresa de Silos Portuários SA,                   faith and of the legitimate expectations of the
       to pay its debt to EPAC.                                               economic operators affected by it and seriously
                                                                              offends against the principle of proportionality.
Thus, an economic viability and financial restructuring
plan for EPAC was drawn up by Government Order
No 887/96 — SETF of 17 May 1996, which was
approved jointly by the SETF and the SEPAA by way of
Government Order of 26 July 1996 . That joint order                     Action brought on 11 July 1997 by Christopher Atkin
proposed that EPAC be authorized to negotiate a loan at                 and others against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                      Communities
market rates up to a maximum of Esc 50 000 000 000,
30 000 000 000 of which were to be guaranteed by the                                              (Case T-205/97)
State .
                                                                                                     ( 97/C 318/41
                                                                                          (Language of the case: French)
In support of its claims the applicant makes the following
submissions :
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
I.       The statement of reasons for the           Commission 's
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 11 July 1997
                                                                        by Christopher Atkin, residing in Brussels, David
decision is not adequate. It considers in this respect that             Cornwell, residing at Kraainem ( Belgium ), and Paul
the statement of reasons for the adoption of the contested              Smeulders, residing at Sutton Courtney ( United Kingdom ),
decision is even more necessary in view of the fact that the            represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with
extraordinary power which the case-law of the Court of                  an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Justice conferred on the Commission to impose interim                   Evelyne Korn, 21 rue de Nassau .
measures by way of provisional decisions envisaged until
now only the suspension of payments by the State to
undertakings receiving aid and not the suspension of a                  The applicants claim that the Court should:
mere State guarantee which does not constitute any form
of aid for the banks to which it was extended and which                 — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their request
are in a third-party relationship to the undertaking which                    to be regraded,
obtained the State guarantee .
                                                                        — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their
                                                                              administrative complaint,
II .      The   Commission's     decision  is  unlawful    in  the
conditions in which it was adopted:                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 ( a ) the Portuguese State 's guarantee did not constitute
        State aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the EC
       Treaty. The applicant points out in this respect                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
       that the Commission does not claim that the State 's              Case T- 16/97 (').
       guarantee for nothing more than a restructuring
        operation of EPAC's assets — a guarantee which did               (>) OJ C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
        not involve either the direct or indirect transfer of
        State resources to that public           undertaking —
        constitutes State aid . Likewise, the contested decision
        makes no mention of the right/duty of the Portuguese
        State, in its capacity as holder of the whole of the
        undertaking's capital, to lend it such support;                  Action brought on 15 July 1997 by Georges Berthu
                                                                                   against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                                   ( Case T-207/97 )
 ( b ) even if it should be characterized as aid, the
        Portuguese State was entitled to grant it without being                                       ( 97/C 318/42 )
        required to notify it to the Commission;
                                                                                          (Language of the case: French)
 ( c) accordingly, there was no breach of Article 93 ( 3 ) of            An action against the Council of the European Union was
        the EC Treaty;                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European