CELEX: C1998/340/23
Language: en
Date: 1998-11-07 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 25 September 1998 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-351/98)

7.11.98                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 340/13
Action brought on 23 September 1998 by the Commission                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
 of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                         (Case C-349/98)                              Ð annul Articles 3 and 4 of Decision C(1998) 2048 of
                                                                          the Commission of 1 July 1998 concerning the Spanish
                          (98/C 340/22)
                                                                          system of aid for the purchase of industrial vehicles
                                                                          (Plan Renove Industrial);
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   Ð order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
23 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Laura Pignataro of its Legal
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                             Ð Infringement of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The measures contained in the Plan Renove Industrial
                                                                          do not constitute aid which is incompatible with the
                                                                          common market, since they do not favour certain
Ð declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and                 undertakings or the production of certain goods and
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   do not distort competition; consequently, by adopting
     Council Directive 95/18/EC of 19 June 1995 on the                    the contested decision, the Commission has infringed
     licensing of railway undertakings (1) and Council                    Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty. There exists no
     Directive 95/19/EC of 19 June 1995 on the allocation                 discrimination of any kind based on the nationality of
     of railway infrastructure capacity and the charging of               the person acquiring a vehicle; consequently, any
     infrastructure fees (2), the Italian Republic has failed to          national of another Member State is eligible to benefit
     fulfil its obligations under those Directives;                       from the measures provided for in the Plan. The rules
                                                                          laid down by the Plan Renove Industrial do not
Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the                      provide that the vehicle to be withdrawn from
     proceedings.                                                         circulation must be owned by the recipient of aid
                                                                          under that Plan; the vehicle concerned may be owned
                                                                          by a third party with whom the recipient enters into
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       an agreement for that purpose. The fact that the
                                                                          vehicle which is withdrawn must be registered in Spain
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive               does not give rise to any distortion of competition or
is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the                     prejudice haulage contractors established outside
Member State to which it is addressed, places Member                      Spain.
States under an obligation to comply with the time-limits
set by directives for their implementation. In the present                Even if, as the Commission maintains, the directives
case, when the time-limits expired on 27 June 1997, the                   on aid to small and medium-sized undertakings (92/
Italian Republic had not adopted the measures necessary                   C 213/02) are not applicable to the haulage sector, it is
to comply with the Directives named in the Commission's                   undeniable that the reason which prompted the
application.                                                              Commission to adopt the de minimis' rule in those
                                                                          directives does not apply in the circumstances of the
(1) OJ L 143 of 27.6.1995, p. 70.                                         present case, and that aid on such a small scale as that
(2) OJ L 143 of 27.6.1995, p. 75.                                         paid to recipients under the Plan Renove Industrial
                                                                          does not have any appreciable effect on competition or
                                                                          on trade between Member States. In fact, the analysis
                                                                          carried out in relation to recipients of aid under the
                                                                          Plan reaches the following conclusions:
                                                                          1. A considerable number of recipients of aid under
Action brought on 25 September 1998 by the Kingdom
                                                                              the Plan carry on haulage activities on such a
of Spain against the Commission of the European
                                                                              small scale that they do not even require the grant
                           Communities
                                                                              of authorisation by the transport authorities.
                         (Case C-351/98)
                          (98/C 340/23)                                   2. There is a high proportion of type B, C and D
                                                                              vehicles covered by the Plan which are authorised
                                                                              only for private haulage operations.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                    3. The weight of the type B, C and D vehicles
the European Communities on 25 September 1998 by the                          authorised for public haulage operations is limited
Kingdom of Spain, represented by R. Silva de Lapuerta,                        (43 %), and, of those vehicles, slightly over half
acting as Agent, with an address for service in                               are authorised for haulage on a nation-wide scale,
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4±6 Boulevard E.                           the remainder being authorised only for local
Servais.                                                                      haulage operations.
 ---pagebreak--- C 340/14               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.11.98
    4. The vehicles in respect of which aid has been                 25 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
        granted under the plan account for less than 0,5 %           Communities, represented by Michel Nolin and Laura
        of the total number of Spanish industrial vehicles           Pignataro, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
        and for a minuscule proportion of the total                  address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
        number of such vehicles in Europe.                           Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    5. 81 % of recipients of aid who have acquired
        vehicles having a greater tonnage (types A and E)            The Commission of the European Communities claims
        possess only one vehicle of that category, and 97 %          that the Court should:
        have less than 5 vehicles. The undertakings
        concerned are thus very small.
                                                                     Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed periods to
                                                                          adopt or, at all events, to communicate the laws,
Ð Infringement of Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty:                      regulations and administrative measures necessary in
                                                                          order to comply with Council Directives 95/18/EC (1)
    The Kingdom of Spain maintains that there are                         and 95/19/EC (2), respectively, the licensing of railway
    reasons relating to environmental protection and road                 undertakings and the allocation of railway
    safety which justify the application in the present case              infrastructure capacity and the charging of
    of the provisions of Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty,               infrastructure fees, the French Republic has failed to
    and that the measures proposed will clearly have a                    fulfil its obligations under those directives;
    positive effect in those two areas, without any increase
    in capacity.
                                                                     Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Ð Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
    expectations:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    The time which elapsed following the submission of
    each request for information (3 periods of total silence         Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
    on the part of the Commission, respectively lasting 4            directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved,
    months, 7 months and 3 months) prompted the logical              upon the Member States to which they are addressed. The
    and legitimate conclusion that the Commission had no             Member States' obligations in that regard include the
    objection whatever to the measures laid down in the              obligation to comply with the time-limits laid down by the
    Plan Renove Industrial. Furthermore, although the                directives in question. In the present case, the time-limit
    Commission on one occasion gave notice that it might             expired on 27 June 1997, but the French Republic has
    have to adopt a provisional decision requiring the               failed to adopt or, at all events, to communicate the
    Spanish authorities to suspend payment of the aid in             requisite measures.
    issue, it never imposed any such requirement. The
    legitimate expectation referred to above gave rise to a
                                                                     (1) OJ L 143 of 27.6.1995, p. 70.
    substantial increase in the number of recipients of aid          (2) OJ L 143 of 27.6.1995, p. 75.
    under the Plan Renove Industrial.
Ð Absence of proportionality and absence of a statement
    of reasons:
    The fact that aid is declared to be prohibited by
    Article 92 is not enough to give rise simultaneously to          Action brought on 25 September 1998 by the Commission
    an obligation to repay that aid. Upon weighing in the            of the European Communities against the French Republic
    balance, on the one hand, the restoration of free                                         (Case C-354/98)
    competition, which the Commission claims to have
    been under threat, and, on the other, the whole series                                     (98/C 340/25)
    of actual losses which the recipients of aid under the
    Plan would suffer if they were obliged to repay such
    aid, it is clearly impossible to achieve any equilibrium.        An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                     the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                     25 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, of its
                                                                     Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                     in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
Action brought on 25 September 1998 by the Commission                Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
of the European Communities against the French Republic
                        (Case C-353/98)                              The Commission of the European Communities claims
                         (98/C 340/24)                               that the Court should:
An action against the French Republic was brought before             Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       and administrative measures necessary in order to