CELEX: C2002/109/61
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-75/02 P: Appeal brought on 6 March 2002 by Territorio Histórico de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others against the order delivered on 11 January 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-77/01 between Territorio Histórico de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others and Commission of the European Communities

C 109/36               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.5.2002
Appeal brought on 6 March 2002 by Territorio Histórico                       does not justify that, on the raising of an objection of
de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others against                      inadmissibility, locus standi based on the EC Treaty
the order delivered on 11 January 2002 by the Third                           should be ruled out and the action dismissed as inadmis-
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                        sible.
Communities in Case T-77/01 between Territorio His-
tórico de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others
      and Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case C-75/02 P)                                 —    The order under appeal places a literal, restrictive and
                                                                              incorrect construction on the second paragraph of
                                                                              Article 33 CA: the reason the second paragraph of
                        (2002/C 109/61)                                       Article 33 CA refers to undertakings and associations of
                                                                              undertakings is that the authors of the Treaty assumed
                                                                              that acts based on the ECSC Treaty could only affect coal
                                                                              or steel producers or associations thereof, without that
                                                                              implying a desire to exclude other persons finding
An appeal against the order delivered on 11 January 2002 by
                                                                              themselves in a situation similar to that of an undertaking
the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              to which aid is granted under a Commission decision.
European Communities in Case T-77/01 between Territorio
                                                                              Regional or territorial authorities which adopt a measure
Histórico de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava and Others
                                                                              classified as aid by a Commission decision are in a
and Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                              situation similar to that of the recipient of aid.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
6 March 2002 by (1) Territorio Histórico de Alava —
Diputación Foral de Alava, (2) Territorio Histórico de Bizcaia
— Diputación Foral de Bizcaia, (3) Territorio Histórico de
Gipuzkoa — Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa and Juntas Gen-
erales de Gipuzkoa and (4) Comunidad Autónoma del Paı́s
Vasco — Gobierno Vasco, represented by Ramón Falcón y                  —    The finding of inadmissibility runs counter to the prin-
Tella, abogado, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                    ciple of effective legal protection, a defect which cannot
                                                                              be remedied by granting an application for leave to
                                                                              intervene in a parallel action before the Court of Justice:
                                                                              the standing of the Member State, in broad terms, as
The appellants claim that the Court should:                                   institutional or privileged party, does not suffice to afford
                                                                              effective legal protection of the interests of regional or
                                                                              territorial authorities which adopt a measure classified as
1.    set aside the order;                                                    aid, since those interests are different from the interests
                                                                              of the State. The appellants do not seek to equate the
                                                                              position of territorial authorities with tax-raising powers
2.    declare admissible the action brought before the Court of               with the position of the Member States, as privileged or
      First Instance (Case T-77/01) and order the Court of First              institutional parties; however, they do seek to obtain
      Instance to give a judgment on the substance, without                   recognition of the possibility that such territorial auth-
      prejudice to the possibility of staying proceedings pending             orities may have a remedy, at least as effective as that
      judgment by the Court of Justice in C-501/00 Spain v                    afforded to undertakings, where the tax-raising powers
      Commission;                                                             are affected by a Commission decision. In the present
                                                                              case, although the Court of Justice granted the application
3.    order the Commission to pay the costs of proceedings in                 for leave to intervene submitted by the Basque Diputa-
      the appeal and at first instance.                                       ciones Forales in the action brought by the State
                                                                              (C-501/00), the fact remains that the State might not
                                                                              have brought proceedings, or might have brought pro-
                                                                              ceedings for a different purpose or based on different
                                                                              arguments to those which the present appellants consider
                                                                              appropriate. Moreover, the State could yet withdraw from
Pleas and main arguments                                                      Case C-501/00, which would leave the present appellants
                                                                              defenceless.
—     The order under appeal should have held admissible the
      action brought under Article 230 EC, even if in order to
      do so it first had to examine provisionally some of the
      matters of substance: locus standi cannot be ruled out for
      the mere fact that the Commission erroneously based on
      the ECSC Treaty a decision which should have been based
      on the EC Treaty (or on both simultaneously). It is true
      that the question whether, in the present case, the
      decision should have been based on the EC Treaty or on
      the ECSC Treaty is a matter of substance. However, that