CELEX: C2001/108/50
Language: en
Date: 2001-04-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-32/01: Action brought on 9 February 2001 by the Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia — Diputación Foral de Bizkaia against the Commission of the European Communities

7.4.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 108/27
The applicant bases its claim in essence on alleged infringement           The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the procedure laid down by law in Article 88 EC and in
Regulation No 659/1999 (1) as regards existing aid schemes,                —     annul the Commission’s decision of 28 November 2000
and consequently pleads violation of the principles of legal                     initiating the procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC
certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and the                     with regard to Article 14 of Norma Foral 11/1993;
right to a fair hearing.
It maintains in that regard that the Commission has since                  —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
1994 been aware of the existence of the Norma Foral in
question, the provisions of which as a whole, and not
merely Article 14, were the subject of a complaint seeking a
declaration that it was incompatible with the common market                Pleas in law and main arguments
under Article 87 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                           The measure to which the contested decision relates is laid
As a result of that complaint, the Commission proceeded to
                                                                           down by Article 14 of the Norma Foral No 11/1993 of the
carry out a preliminary State aid investigation and sent a copy
                                                                           Territorio Histórico de Gipuzkoa of 26 June 1993 concerning
of the complaint in question to the Kingdom of Spain.
                                                                           urgent fiscal measures in support of investment and the
According to the applicant, the Commission at no time
                                                                           promotion of economic activity, which provides for an
indicated that it was initiating, or had initiated, the formal
                                                                           exemption from corporation tax for certain newly formed
investigation procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC.
                                                                           undertakings.
The fact that, in November 2000, the Commission proceeded
to initiate the inter partes procedure provided for in Article             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
88(2) with regard to one of the articles of Norma Foral                    advanced in Case T-30/01.
No 18/1993 necessarily means, in the applicant’s view,
that the Commission has failed to comply with the legally
established procedure for investigating and assessing existing
aid schemes.
The applicant considers that, if the Commission has any
doubts either as to whether the tax exemption provided for
may constitute aid or as to its compatibility with the common
market, it cannot categorise that exemption as new aid but
must classify it as existing aid and should proceed, in
accordance with the principle of sound administration, to                  Action brought on 9 February 2001 by the Territorio
analyse and scrutinise the same in the context of the constant             Histórico de Bizkaia — Diputación Foral de Bizkaia
review of aid systems of that type provided for in Article 88(1)             against the Commission of the European Communities
EC.
                                                                                                    (Case T-32/01)
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
    down detailed rules for the application of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83
    of 27.3.1999, p. 1).
                                                                                                   (2001/C 108/50)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: Spanish)
Action brought on 9 February 2001 by the Territorio
Histórico de Gipuzkoa — Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa                     An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 9 February 2001 by the Territorio
                          (Case T-31/01)                                   Histórico de Bizkaia — Diputación Foral de Bizkaia, established
                                                                           in Bizkaia (Spain), represented by Marta Morales Isasi and
                         (2001/C 108/49)                                   Ignacio Sáenz-Cortabarrı́a Fernández, lawyers.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 —     annul the Commission’s decision of 28 November 2000
European Communities on 9 February 2001 by the Territorio                        initiating the procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC
Histórico de Gipuzkoa — Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa,                          with regard to Article 14 of Norma Foral 5/1993;
established in Gipuzkoa (Spain), represented by Marta Morales
Isasi and Ignacio Sáenz-Cortabarrı́a Fernández, lawyers.                 —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 108/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.4.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The measure to which the contested decision relates is laid
down by Article 14 of the Norma Foral No 5/1993 of the                   The applicant, an official classified in grade C 1, step 8, is
Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia of 24 June 1993 concerning              challenging the refusal of the selection board in internal
urgent fiscal measures in support of investment and the                  competition COM/PB/99 for movement from category C to
promotion of economic activity, which provides for an                    category B to admit her to the oral test in that competition.
exemption from corporation tax for certain newly formed
undertakings.                                                            She points out in that regard that, by letter of 8 March 2000,
                                                                         the chairman of the selection board informed the applicant
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                 that she had not been admitted to the oral test because of her
advanced in Case T-30/01.                                                marks in the written test, which, despite being higher than the
                                                                         minimum required (30 out of 50), were not such as to place
                                                                         her within the 170 best candidates, who were the only ones
                                                                         permitted to take part in the oral test. In order to be included
                                                                         amongst those 170 best candidates, it was necessary to obtain
                                                                         a mark totalling at least 30.25.
Action brought on 14 February 2001 by Anna Maria
Roccato (Mrs Pinson) against the Commission of the
                    European Communities                                 In support of her application, the applicant pleads:
                         (Case T-34/01)                                  —     infringement of the obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                               reasons and of the general principle of transparency. The
                        (2001/C 108/51)                                        applicant states in that connection that the principle of
                                                                               transparency precludes a refusal to provide a candidate in
                   (Language of the case: French)                              a competition with documents and answers relating to
                                                                               matters outside the ambit of an assessment of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      comparative merits of the candidates;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 February 2001 by Anna Maria                   —     infringement of the rules governing the work done by the
Roccato (Mrs Pinson), represented by Georges Vandersanden                      selection board, and the commission of a manifest error
and Laure Levi, lawyers.                                                       of assessment in the present case;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and
                                                                               misuse of powers in the present case. In that regard, the
—     annul the decision of the selection board in competition
                                                                               applicant, who reached the end of her career bracket on
      COM/PB/99 of 8 March 2000 excluding the applicant
                                                                               1 February 1988, speculates that the reason for her
      from the oral test in the competition;
                                                                               exclusion from the oral test may lie in the fact that the
—     annul all steps taken and to be taken in the competition;                selection board in the competition may have been biased
                                                                               in favour of younger officials having, in consequence,
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                    longer-term career prospects than she.