CELEX: C2003/200/33
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-23 00:00:00
Title: Case C-276/03 P: Appeal brought on 25 June 2003 by Scott SA against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2003 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-366/00 between Scott SA, supported by the French Republic, and the Commission of the European Communities

23.8.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 200/19
   2)    order Ireland to pay the costs.                                    —     It also wrongly failed to give any, or any sufficient
                                                                                  weight to the fact that it is the recipient of aid that
                                                                                  particularly requires protection in cases where
                                                                                  Article 15 applies.
   Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed               —     The Court of First Instance should not have held that
   expired on 20 July 2002.                                                       the characterisation of the recipient of aid as merely an
                                                                                  ‘information source’ in the course of the procedure
                                                                                  under Article 88(2) EC supported its conclusion.
                                                                            —     The Court of First Instance wrongly failed to take
   Appeal brought on 25 June 2003 by Scott SA against                             account of the wording of Articles 14 and 15 which
   the judgment delivered on 10 April 2003 by the Fifth                           indicates that Article 15 is concerned with the liability
   Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                           of recipients of aid.
   Instance of the European Communities in case T-366/
   00 between Scott SA, supported by the French
   Republic, and the Commission of the European                             —     The Court of First Instance wrongly failed to recognise
                             Communities                                          that the consequence of its interpretation of Article 15
                                                                                  was to frustrate the purpose of that Article, that is to
                          (Case C-276/03 P)                                       say, to provide legal certainty to recipients of aid.
                           (2003/C 200/33)
                                                                            The Court of First Instance was wrong to hold that the
                                                                            absence of a ‘duty’ on the part of the Commission to ‘warn’
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2003                recipients of interrupting actions was relevant to the ques-
   by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court                 tion of whether an action of which the recipient had no
   of First Instance of the European Communities in case                    notice could interrupt the limitation period as against it.
   T-366/00 between Scott SA, supported by the French
   Republic, and the Commission of the European Commu-
   nities (1), was brought before the Court of Justice of the               The Court of First Instance was wrong to hold that
   European Communities on 25 June 2003 by Scott SA,                        Article 15 created a single limitation period that applied in
   established in Saint-Cloud (France), represented by Sir                  the same way to the Member State concerned and to ‘third
   Jeremy Lever KCMG, QC, and G. Peretz, Barristers, and                    parties’; alternatively, it was wrong to hold that such a
   A. Nourry and R. Griffith, Solicitors, with an address for               principle operated so as to exclude the application of the
   service in Luxembourg.                                                   limitation rule as sought by Scott.
   The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            The Court of First Instance was wrong to regard it as
   —     set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance              relevant to the application of Article 15 that Scott could
         dismissing Scott's application for annulment of                    have had no legitimate expectation that the aid was lawfully
         Article 2 of the Decision (2) in so far as Scott's                 granted originally; the purpose of Article 15 is to provide
         application alleges that the Commission infringed                  legal certainty where, ex hypothesi, the aid was not lawfully
         Article 15 of the Regulation;                                      granted.
   —     annul Article 2 of the Decision, in so far as it
         concerns the alleged aid granted in the form of a
         preferential land price referred to in Article 1 of the            The Court of First Instance wrongly disregarded the wording
         Decision; and                                                      of Article 15 and failed to address an important argument
                                                                            addressed to it by Scott, summarised by the Court of First
   —     order the Commission to pay the costs of this appeal,              Instance at paragraph 42 of the judgment.
         including the costs incurred by Scott at first instance.
                                                                            The Court of First Instance was wrong to treat it as relevant
   Pleas in law and main arguments                                          that there was no limitation rule in force on the expiry of
                                                                            10 years from the grant of the aid to Scott.
   The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of
   First Instance should be set aside on the following grounds:
                                                                        (1) OJ C 61, 24.02.2001, p. 16.
                                                                        (2) 2002/14/EC: Commission Decision of 12 July 2000 on the state
   The Court of First Instance was wrong to apply the newly                 aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA Kimberly-Clark (Text with
   introduced provisions of Article 15 of Regulation 659/                   EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2000) 2183)
   99 (3)as if they were governed by the old case-law relating              (OJ L 12, 15.01.2002, p. 1).
   to the conduct of administrative procedures.                         (3) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
                                                                            down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
   —     The Court of First Instance should have recognised that            Treaty (OJ L 83, 27.03.1999, p. 1).
         the Regulation established a Community State aid
         regime that is, in important and relevant respects, new.