CELEX: 62002TN0210
Language: en
Date: 2002-07-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-210/02: Action brought on 12 July 2002 by the British Aggregates Association Co Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

14.9.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 219/23
Action brought on 12 July 2002 by the British Aggregates                 certain sectors are not taxed in order to protect their competi-
Association Co Limited against the Commission of the                     tiveness. Therefore, the Levy must be considered to be State
                    European Communities                                 Aid.
                        (Case T-210/02)
                                                                         Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission failed
                                                                         to state reasons in the contested Decision, as required by
                        (2002/C 219/54)                                  Article 253 EC Treaty. According to the applicant, the
                                                                         Commission also violated its obligation to initiate a formal
                                                                         investigation procedure, where the preliminary investigation
                  (Language of the case: English)                        was carried out in insufficient depth to resolve the serious
                                                                         difficulties regarding the compatibility of the measure with the
                                                                         State Aid provisions. The applicant also submits that the
                                                                         Commission violated its procedural obligations in the prelimi-
                                                                         nary investigation. In this respect, the applicant claims that
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                the Commission did not conduct a diligent and impartial
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               examination of the applicant’s complaint and did not provide
European Communities on 12 July 2002 by the British                      the applicant with an adequate explanation for rejecting its
Aggregates Association Co Limited, represented by Craig                  arguments.
Pouncey and Lode Van Den Hende of Herbert Smith, Brussels
(Belgium).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Commission Decision C(2002) 1478fin of 24 April
      2002 ‘State Aid N 863/01- United Kingdom/Aggregates
      Levy’ save as regards the exemption for Northern Ireland;
                                                                         Action brought on 15 July 2002 by Tideland Signal
                                                                         Limited against the Commission of the European Com-
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in the                                        munities
      present proceedings.
                                                                                                  (Case T-211/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                  (2002/C 219/55)
The applicant is an association representing smaller and
                                                                                            (Language of the case: English)
independent quarrying companies in the United Kingdom.
The competitive position of its members is affected by the
Aggregates Levy, an environmental tax raised by the United
Kingdom on certain aggregates. The objective of the Levy is to
reflect the environmental impacts of aggregate quarrying more
fully in the price of aggregates. These environmental costs              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
include noise, dust, damage to biodiversity and visual amenity.          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
A further objective of the Levy is the encouragement of the              European Communities on 15 July 2002 by Tideland Signal
use of recycled or alternative material.                                 Limited, represented by Christopher Thomas and Ciara Kenne-
                                                                         dy of Lovells, Brussels (Belgium).
In the contested Decision, the Commission declared the Levy
to be compatible with the Common Market.                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the Commission Decision of 17 June 2002 rejecting
According to the applicant, the Commission made a manifest                     the tender submitted by Tideland Signal Limited in
error of assessment in deciding that the distinction made                      tender procedure EUROPEAID/112336/C/S/WW-TACIS-
between taxable and non-taxable situations is justified by the                 (RE-TENDER);
logic and nature of the tax system. The applicant claims,
however, that the objectives of the Levy cannot explain the
different treatment of similar situations. The applicant also            —     order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
stated that the United Kingdom authorities admitted that                       applicant.