CELEX: C2001/028/21
Language: en
Date: 2001-01-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-404/00: Action brought on 7 November 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

C 28/12                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.1.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 7 November 2000 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                                        Spain
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 22 August 2000
      in respect of all the measures it relates to with the
      exception of the grant of June 1998;                                                        (Case C-404/00)
—     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
                                                                                                   (2001/C 28/21)
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 November
                                                                         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
—     The present action is directed against the decision of the         represented by Klaus-Dieter Borchardt and Stefan Rating, of its
      Commission initiating the formal investigation provided            Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
      for under Article 88(2) EC into the injection of capital           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
      and regional aid given to Santana Motor SA, taking                 Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
      the view that this was new aid, and suspending its
      implementation. The Spanish authorities however regard
      the measures to which the contested decision relates to            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      be existing aid. The aid, which was duly notified on
      30 July and 17 November 1999 (capital injection and
      regional aid respectively), became existent by virtue of           —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      Article 4(6) of Council Regulation No 659/99 (1). By letter              within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
      of 28 July 2000 transmitted by fax on the same day, the                  administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
      Spanish authorities informed the Commission that the                     mission Decision 2000/131/EC of 26 October 1999 (1)
      Junta de Andalucı́a was about to implement the measures                  declaring certain aid granted to the group of publicly
      notified to the Commission. The fact that that communi-                  owned shipyards in Spain to have been granted illegally
      cation was registered by the Commission on 31 July, or                   and, moreover, incompatible with the common market,
      3 days later, does not change the date on which the fax                  Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      was received, which is the transmission date.                            Article 249 of the EC Treaty and Articles 2 and of that
                                                                               directive; and
      The contested decision dated 22 August was notified on
      23 August 2000, when the 15 working days on which                  —     Order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
      the Commission relied had expired.
      Likewise, a fax of 17 August and a letter of 21 August,            Pleas in law and main arguments
      prior to the date of the contested decision, informing the
      recipient that the Commission had ‘adopted’ that decision,
      cannot be regarded in any way as notification of the
      formal decision to initiate the investigation pursuant to          Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, Decision 2000/131/EC of
      Article 4 of Regulation 659/99.                                    26 October 1999 is to be binding in its entirety upon Kingdom
                                                                         of Spain, the Member State to which it is addressed, by virtue
                                                                         of the notification served upon it on 2 December 1999.
—     (In the alternative) Inadequate statement of reasons               Although Article 243 EC provides for Court of Justice to
                                                                         prescribe any necessary interim measures, the Kingdom of
                                                                         Spain, which had brought an action for annulment under
      The contested decision was adopted by the Commission               Article 230 EC against the decision (Case C-36/00), has not to
      only in order to circumvent the deadline after which they          date submitted any request to that effect. Thus, the decision in
      became ‘existent’, and are not a reflection of a certainty         question remains binding in its entirety in respect of the
      that the measures are incompatible with the Treaty, nor            Kingdom of Spain. The Spanish Government has not complied
      that there was a need for more information than was                with the decision without it being possible to consider such
      received.                                                          failure justified by an ‘absolute impossibility’.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
    down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC      (1) On the State aid implemented by Spain in favour of the publicly
    Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).                                             owned shipyards (OJ 2000 L 37, p. 22).