CELEX: C1999/226/72
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-127/99: Action brought on 25 May 1999 by the Territorio Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia - Diputación Foral de Alava against the Commission of the European Communities

7.8.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 226/41
Action brought on 25 May 1999 by the Territorio                             Article 87 EC (ex Article 92). The tax authorities do not
Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación                    possess the alleged discretion attributed to them by the
Foral de Alava against the Commission of the European                       Commission, and the requirements laid down in the
                         Communities                                        Norma Foral may be fulfilled by any economic operator,
                                                                            irrespective of the sector in which it carries on its activities:
                        (Case T-127/99)                                 — erroneous application of the exception based on the nature
                                                                            and scheme of the system, which may justify a finding of
                        (1999/C 226/72)                                     selectivity in the event that such a finding is made. The
                                                                            applicant maintains in that regard that the criteria for
                                                                            application of Normas Forales 22/1994 and 24/1996 are
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                           objective and transparent, and moreover, that they are
                                                                            necessary for the achievement of the objectives pursued by
                                                                            them.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission has failed to
European Communities on 25 May 1999 by the Territorio                   comply with its obligation to provide a statement of reasons
Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación                for the acts adopted by it.
Foral de Alava, established in Vitoria, Spain, represented by
Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña Uriarte Valiente lawyers,
with an address for service c/o Cuatrecasas Abogados, 78
Avenue d’Auderghem, 1040 Brussels.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Action brought on 25 May 1999 by Signal Communi-
                                                                        cations Ltd against the Office for Harmonisation in the
— annul the Commission Decision of 24 February 1999                                              Internal Market
    concerning State aid granted by Spain to Daewoo Elec-
    tronics Manufacturing España (DEMESA), in particular
    Articles 1(d) and (e) and 2(1)(b) thereof and, in so far as it                               (Case T-128/99)
    may be concerned Article 2(2) thereof;
                                                                                                (1999/C 226/73)
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                                          (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
By the present action, the applicant contests the decision of           European Communities on 25 May 1999 b Signal Communi-
the Commission by which it found that the following financial           cations Ltd., represented by John Grayston and André Bywater,
measures adopted in relation to Daewoo Electronics Manufac-             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
turing España S.A. (DEMESA) constitute State aid incompatible          Duro & Lang, 3 rue de la Chappelle.
with the common market:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
— free occupation of land on the Júndiz industrial estate for
    a term of nine months pending payment of the price                  — declare the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the
    thereof;                                                                Internal Market First Board of Appeal of 24 March 1999,
                                                                            dismissing the appeal by the applicant, is void:
— the investment subsidy granted by the Basque authorities              — order that Community Trade Mark Application
    in the context of the EKIMEN programme, 5 % of which                    No 837096 be amended from TELEYE to TELEEYE; and
    was not covered by that scheme;
                                                                        — order the costs of proceedings to be borne by the
— the benefit of the measures provided for in Normas                        defendant.
    Forales (regional regulations) 22/1994 and 24/1996 of the
    Territorio Histórico de Alava, consisting of a tax credit of
    45 % of the cost of the investment and a reduction of the           Pleas in law and main arguments
    basis of assessment granted to newly created undertakings.
                                                                        Trade mark concerned:             ‘TELEYE’ - Application No
                                                                                                          837096
In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:
                                                                        Product or service:               alarm and surveillance systems
— misinterpretation by the Commission of the concept of                                                   (Class 9)
    State aid, as regards the Commission’s view that the tax
    credit and the reduction of the basis of assessment                 Decision contested before         decision of the examiner not
    constitute measures of a selective nature and, consequently,        the Board of Appeal:              allowing an amendment of the
    that they amount to State aid. The applicant maintains in                                             application for the trace mark
    that regard that the measures in issue are of a general                                               ‘TELEYE’ to ‘TETEEYE’
    nature and that, as such, they fall outside the scope of