CELEX: C2003/031/26
Language: en
Date: 2003-02-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-344/02: Action brought on 21 November 2002 by Air One S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

8.2.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 31/17
and territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumu-                   Pleas in law and main arguments
lation of origin (OJ 2000 L 246, p. 64) and secondly for
damages — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,                  The applicant, a public limited company whose seat is
Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a           in Athens, has as its business the production, packaging,
judgment on 14 November 2002, in which it:                                   standardisation and preservation of, and trade in, agricultural
                                                                             products. It was founded pursuant to an improvement plan
                                                                             drawn up under Regulations (EEC) No 355/77 and No 866/90
1.    Orders that Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00 be joined for the              for co-financing by the European Community and the Greek
      purposes of the judgment;                                              State.
2.    Dismisses the applications;
                                                                             The applicant submits that, following the adoption of a
3.    Orders each of the applicants to bear its own costs, and pay           measure relating to the market by the Greek authorities, it was
      those incurred by the Commission in the case it has brought,           reduced to an extremely poor financial position and its
      including, in the case of the applicant in Case T-350/00, those        operation became problematic.
      incurred by it in the proceedings for interim relief;
                                                                             By its application, it accuses the Commission of inaction and
4.    Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.                        delaying tactics since, notwithstanding the applicant’s repeated
                                                                             requests and its approaches to various Community authorities,
                                                                             the Commission failed:
( 1) OJ C 4 of 6.1.01 and C 45 of 10.2.01.
                                                                             —      to abolish the Community financial assistance under
                                                                                    Article 23 of Regulation No 4253/88 (1);
                                                                             —      to initiate, against the Hellenic Republic, the procedure
                                                                                    under Article 226 EC for breach of Community law.
Action brought on 28 October 2002 by the company                             In this connection, the applicant submits that the Commission
Tipopiitiria Thivas A.E. — Viomikhania Siskevasias Tipo-                     infringed Regulation No 4253/88, exceeded the limits of
piisis kai Sintirisis Agrotikon Proïonton against the Com-                   its discretion and offended against the principle of equal
            mission of the European Communities                              treatment.
                           (Case T-334/02)                                   (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988,
                                                                                  laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                  No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the
                           (2003/C 31/25)                                         different Structural Funds between themselves and with the
                                                                                  operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
                                                                                  existing financial instruments (OJ No L 374, 31.12.1998, p. 1).
                     (Language of the Case: Greek)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 October 2002 by the company
Tipopiitiria Thivas A.E. — Viomikhania Siskevasias Tipopiisis                Action brought on 21 November 2002 by Air One S.p.A.
kai Sintirisis Agrotikon Proïonton, whose seat is in Athens                     against the Commission of the European Communities
(Greece), represented by Ioannis Stamoulis, of the Athens Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                                         (Case T-344/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                               (2003/C 31/26)
—     allow the present application challenging the failure                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
      of the European Commission to abolish Community
      assistance;
—     declare that the European Commission has unlawfully                    An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
      failed to abolish the Community financial assistance;                  the European Communities on 21 November 2002 by the
                                                                             abovementioned applicant, represented by G. Belotti, against
—     order the European Commission to pay the costs.                        the Commission of the European Communities.
 ---pagebreak--- C 31/18                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         8.2.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     to the payment of the third, it did not take into
                                                                                consideration certain consequences of the unsuccessful
                                                                                outcome of the restructuring plan and of the infringement
—     annul the contested decision                                              of certain conditions.
      (a)   both in so far as the Commission took formal notice            —    The aid used to cover Alitalia’s financial losses after the
            of the payment of the second tranche of aid to                      restructuring plan had expired constituted unauthorised
            Alitalia, which was authorised by Decision 97/789/                  new aid. In any event, it constituted a misuse of aid, since
            EC of 15 July 1997 and confirmed by                                 it was used to cover financial losses occurring after the
            Decision 2001/723/EC of 18 July 2001, and decided                   end of the restructuring plan, that is to say for a use
            not to object to the payment of the third tranche;                  which had not been authorised by the Commission.
      (b) and in so far as it established that the new recapitalis-        —    As regards the defendant’s determination that the new
            ation of Alitalia in the sum of EUR 1 432 million                   recapitalisation of Alitalia in the sum of
            notified by the Italian authorities on 29 and 30 April              EUR 1 432 million notified by the Italian authorities on
            2002 does not constitute State aid;                                 29 and 30 April 2002 does not constitute State aid, it
                                                                                should be stated, in particular in the light of the private
                                                                                investor principle and the absence of analysis of the
—     in the alternative, annul the decision on one of the two                  prospects of profitability of the undertaking, that the
      grounds mentioned above;                                                  Commission erred in not considering the following
                                                                                matters: notwithstanding the existence of option rights,
                                                                                private shareholders in Alitalia did not subscribe to the
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the action in any                 new increase in capital; private banks subscribed only
      event.                                                                    after the formal subscription of the State and the price of
                                                                                the new shares was two-thirds of the price of the
                                                                                contemporaneous increase in the capital subscribed
                                                                                exclusively by the State by means of the second and third
                                                                                tranches of aid for restructuring.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By the contested decision, the Commission took formal notice
of the payment of the second tranche of aid by the Italian
Republic for the restructuring of Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane
S.p.A., authorised by Decision 97/789/EC of 15 July 1997 and
confirmed by Decision 2001/723/EC of 18 July 2001, and
decided not to object to the payment of the third tranche. It              Action brought on 26 November 2002 by Quick Res-
also decided that the new recapitalisation of Alitalia in the sum          taurants SA against Office for Harmonization in the
of EUR 1 432 million does not constitute State aid.                            Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                                   (Case T-348/02)
In support of its claims the applicant makes the following
submissions:
                                                                                                    (2003/C 31/27)
—     Infringement of Article 88(2) of the Treaty, in that as
      Alitalia infringed at least three of the conditions for the
      authorisation of aid, the Commission ought to have                                     (Language of the case: French)
      allowed competing undertakings to submit observations
      before it assessed the compatibility of the payment of the
      second and third tranches of aid with the common
      market.
                                                                           An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
—     Infringement and erroneous application of the Com-                   Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
      munity guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructur-          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      ing firms in difficulty, and a failure to state reasons in           26 November 2002 by Quick Restaurants SA, established in
      that, in so far as the Commission decided to take notice             Brussels, represented by Louis Van Bunnen, lawyer, with an
      of the payment of the second tranche and not to object               address for service in Luxembourg.