CELEX: C2000/259/18
Language: en
Date: 2000-09-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-278/00: Action brought on 13 July 2000 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

C 259/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        9.9.2000
      or                                                                2.   Article 19 of Law 2198/94 is compatible with the
                                                                             common market as it relates to the consolidation of
                                                                             interest on debts regulated by Article 32(2) of Law
—     is that compatible ink-jet cartridge a part or accessory of            2008/92 — the provision governing AGNO’s debt.
      a printer that is assigned to CN heading No 8471 as an
      essential unit of an automatic dataprocessing machine,
      and therefore covered by CN heading No 8473?
                                                                        B.   Order 1620/89 of the Governor of the Bank of Greece
                                                                        The order is compatible with the common market. Its pro-
                                                                        visions do not relate to State aid within the meaning of
                                                                        Article 87 EC.
                                                                        C.   Article 5 of Law 2237/94
Action brought on 13 July 2000 by the Hellenic Republic
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   1.   Compatibility of the provision with the common market.
                                                                             Full observance of the ‘private investor’ principle.
                         (Case C-278/00)
                                                                             (a)   The provisions of Law 2237/94 do not amount to
                                                                                   aid under Article 87 EC and did not affect intra-
                         (2000/C 259/18)                                           Community trade or distort competition by accord-
                                                                                   ing favourable treatment to certain undertakings.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             (b) Even if the provisions of Law 2237/94 were to be
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                   regarded as State aid, they may be regarded as
Communities on 13 July 2000 by the Hellenic Republic,
                                                                                   compatible with the common market under
represented by Ioannis G. Khalkias, Member of the State Legal
                                                                                   Article 87(2)(b) or Article 87(3)(a) and (c):
Service, and Khrisoula Tsiavou, Legal Agent of the State Legal
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Greek Embassy, 125 Val Sainte-Croix.                                               (i)   aid compatible with the common market under
                                                                                         Article 87(2)(b);
The Hellenic Republic claims that the Court should:                                (ii) aid compatible with the common market under
                                                                                         Article 87(3)(c).
—     allow its application;
                                                                        2.   The provisions of Law 2237/94 and of Order 1620/89
—     annul in its entirety Commission Decision E(2000) 686                  of the Governor of the Bank of Greece are inextricably
      final of 1 March 2000 relating to the aid schemes                      linked with the ‘private investor’ principle.
      implemented by Greece in order to regulate debts of
      agricultural cooperatives in the years 1992 and 1994
      including aid for the reorganisation of the dairy cooperat-
                                                                        D.   Law No 2538/97
      ive AGNO, or in the alternative annul Article 2 of that
      decision which requires the recovery with interest of the
      aid found to be unlawful.                                         1.   Council decision as to the Law’s compatibility with the
                                                                             common market.
                                                                        2.   Council Decision 14015/15.12.1998 incorporated and
Grounds for annulment and main arguments                                     legitimated all previous aid.
I.    General grounds for annulment of the                              II.  Specific grounds for annulment of the
      contested decision                                                     contested decision
A.1. Law 2008/92 is concerned with State aid which is fully             E.1. The contested decision should be annulled as infringing
      compatible with the common market because it is                        Article 88(3) EC, the principle of the protection of
      connected with a programme to make good damage                         legitimate expectations, the principle of legal certainty
      that resulted from natural disasters and exceptional                   and the principle of good administration, by reason of
      occurrences.                                                           the excessive delay with which the Commission acted.
 ---pagebreak--- 9.9.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 259/11
2.    The contested decision should be annulled because the             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      facts were assessed incorrectly. The assessments contained
      in the contested decision are manifestly misconceived:
                                                                        (a)   declare that, by requiring undertakings engaged in the
                                                                              provision of temporary labour which are established in
      (i)   with regard to Article 32(2) of Law 2008/92; and                  other Member States to:
      (ii) with regard to Article 5 of law 2237/94.
                                                                              —     maintain their registered office or a branch office on
                                                                                    Italian territory; and
3.    The contested decision infringed Article 87(1) since, even              —     to deposit a guarantee amounting to ITL 700 million
      if the provisions in question were to be regarded as State                    with a credit institution having its registered office
      aid, they did not distort competition or affect trade.                        or a branch on Italian territory,
4.    The statement of grounds in the contested decision is                         the Italian Republic has failed to comply with its
      general and vague since it does not explain why the                           obligations under Articles 59 and 73b of the EC
      relevant provisions of Law 2237/94, Law 2198/94 and                           Treaty (now Articles 49 and 56 EC);
      Order 1620/89 of the Governor of the Bank of Greece
      would be unacceptable for a private investor.
                                                                        (b) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
5.    The statement of grounds in the contested decision is
      inadequate because the refund of aid granted unlawfully
      is not a mandatory requirement under Article 88(2) and
      the Commission does not prove that the refund is                  Pleas in law and main arguments
      necessary in order to restore market conditions.
6.    The contested decision which seeks the refund of all the          A national rule requiring an undertaking engaged in the
      ‘aid’ with interest infringes the principle of pro-               provision of labour to maintain its registered office or a branch
      portionality and the principle of legal certainty.                in Italy, thereby making it totally impossible for undertakings
                                                                        established in other Member States to render such services, is
7.    Under the case-law, it is not possible for aid granted in         manifestly contrary to the principle of freedom to provide
      compliance with the procedure under Article 88 EC to be           services within the Community, as enshrined in Article 59 of
      recovered, in particular after seven years have elapsed.          the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC).
8.    The decision is absolutely incapable of being duly
                                                                        In the Commission’s view, the obligation to deposit a sum by
      implemented.
                                                                        way of guarantee with a bank established in Italy, even where
                                                                        that financial guarantee or an equivalent guarantee is required
                                                                        under the legislation of the Member State in which the
                                                                        undertaking wishing to avail itself of its freedom to provide
                                                                        services is established, constitutes a restriction falling within
                                                                        the scope of the prohibition laid down in Article 59 of the
                                                                        Treaty. That rule also infringes the principle of the free
                                                                        movement of capital (Article 56 EC, formerly Article 73b of
                                                                        the EC Treaty), as expressed in the judgment in Svensson (1), in
Action brought on 13 July 2000 by the Commission of                     which the Court of Justice assessed the compatibility with
 the European Communities against the Italian Republic                  Community law of a Luxembourg regulation rendering the
                                                                        grant of an interest-rate subsidy on loans for the construction,
                                                                        acquisition or improvement of housing subject to the con-
                         (Case C-279/00)                                dition that such loans were to be taken out from banks
                                                                        established in Luxembourg.
                        (2000/C 259/19)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the           (1) Judgment of 14.11.1995 in Case C-484/93 Svensson and Gustavs-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 July                     son [1995] ECR I-3955.
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Maria
Patakia, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.