CELEX: C1998/358/36
Language: en
Date: 1998-11-21 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 21 September 1998 by J. G. Evans and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-148/98)

21.11.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 358/19
Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant                        Action brought on 21 September 1998 by J. G. Evans
     compensation for non-material harm in the sum of              and Others against the Commission of the European
     ECU 5 000 000;                                                                         Communities
                                                                                          (Case T-148/98)
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                   (98/C 358/36)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant was a Member of the European Parliament              An action against the Commission of the European
between 1989 and 1994. While serving as an M.E.P. he               Communities was brought before the Court of First
was Vice-President of the Parliamentary Intergroup for             Instance of the European Communities on 21 September
Cooperation between the Community and the countries of             1998 by J. G. Evans and Others, represented by Thomas
Eastern Europe. In 1990 that intergroup decided, in                Graham and Barbara Hewson, with an address for service
conjunction with the intergroup for tourism, to organise a         in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11,
conference on tourism between the European Union and               rue Goethe.
the States of central and Eastern Europe.
                                                                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
Its organisation was funded, inter alia, by a grant given by
the European Commission within the framework of the
European Year of Tourism amounting to ECU 30 000,                  Ð annul the Decision of the Commission in Case IV/E-3/
which represented 20 % of the estimated cost of the event.             SWSMA of 30 July 1998 declaring that the
By the contested decision the applicant is now asked to                Commission had no power to act under Article 63(1)
refund ECU 24 000 to the Commission on the ground that                 of the ECSC Treaty in respect of past price
it was wrongly paid. The applicant maintains that the                  discrimination by purchasers against coal-producers
sums in question were handled absolutely lawfully and                  during the period 1984 to 1 April 1990; and
properly and puts forward the following grounds for
annulment:
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs.
1. Total failure to state the grounds for the contested
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     decision;
                                                                   In 1990, 93 coal producers (among them the applicants)
2. Infringement of general principles of Community law,
                                                                   complained in the name of the South Wales Small Mines
     in particular:
                                                                   Association (SWSMA) to the Commission of price
                                                                   discrimination by the Central Electricity Generating Board
     2.1. failure to grant a hearing;                              (CEGB) and its successors, National Power and Power
                                                                   Gen. The complaint concerned the operation of a Joint
                                                                   Understanding between British Coal and the CEGB,
     2.2. misuse of powers;                                        whereby the CEGB bought the bulk of the coal required
                                                                   for electricity generation from british Coal at prices which
     2.3. infringement of       the   principle   of   good        were considerably higher than those offered to the small
           administration;                                         coal producers like the applicants, who were British Coal's
                                                                   competitors.
     2.4. infringement of the principle of the protection of
           legitimate expectations.                                By the contested decision the SWSMA was informed that
                                                                   the Commission had decided not to act on that complaint.
The applicant submits in the alternative that the
Commission's claims relating to the grant in question are          The applicants submit that the Commission erred in law
time-barred.                                                       in concluding that it had no power to make a
                                                                   recommendation under Article 63(1) of the ECSC Treaty
                                                                   in respect of price discrimination during the period 1984
Finally the applicant, relying upon the second paragraph           to 1 April 1990. They submit that the Commission is so
of Article 215(2) of the EC Treaty, claims compensation            empowered. Alternatively, the Commission unlawfully
for the non-material harm which he has suffered by reason          refused to act under Article 63(1) of the ECSC Treaty.
of contested Decision.
                                                                   Furthermore the applicants submit that the Commission's
                                                                   finding that no ground existed for issuing a
 ---pagebreak--- C 358/20              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   21.11.98
recommendation was wrong in law. The Commission's                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
reasoning in its decision is circular and flawed. The
Commission failed to apply correctly the analysis of the
Court of Justice in a leading case (1).                               The applicant contests the decision of the Commission
                                                                      authorising the grant of further aid to CreÂdit Lyonnais and
                                                                      re-evaluating the amount of aid resulting from the hive-off
The Commission failed to make any findings as to                      mechanism previously authorised on 26 July 1995.
whether or not discrimination existed in the relevant
period, although the facts set out in the complaint
provided support for such a finding. The Commission
                                                                      The applicant maintains that that aid is illegal under
further failed to draw all the inferences as regards the
                                                                      Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty, since it was not notified in
effects which such discrimination may have had in the
                                                                      advance to the Commission. In the absence of exceptional,
relationship between purchasers and producers, as
                                                                      unforeseeable circumstances beyond the control of CreÂdit
contemplated in Article 4(b) of the ECSC Treaty, even
                                                                      Lyonnais which would have placed it in a significantly
before it took action. The applicant submits, in the
                                                                      worse situation, it was not open to the Commission,
alternative, that the Commission unlawfully failed to act
                                                                      without infringing the provisions of Article 92(3) and
pursuant to Article 63(1) of the ECSC Treaty. As a result,
                                                                      breaching its obligation to provide a statement of reasons,
the applicants are unable to seek any relief in the United
                                                                      to authorise in the present case grants of additional aid
Kingdom courts for the massive losses sustained during
                                                                      over and above those previously authorised.
the period 1984 to 1 April 1990. The contested decision
does not ensure effective protection as required by
Article 4(b) of the ECSC Treaty.
                                                                      The applicant considers that the contested decision does
                                                                      not specify the amount of the aid with sufficient precision.
(1) Case C-18/94 of 2 May 1996, Hopkins and Others v.                 Moreover, the estimate of that amount is vitiated by an
    National Power and Power Gen, ECR I-2281.                         error of law and by a manifest error of assessment, which
                                                                      led the Commission to underestimate by nearly 50 billion
                                                                      francs the amount of aid actually granted to CreÂdit
                                                                      Lyonnais. Those errors prevented the Commission from
                                                                      correctly assessing the compatibility of the aid with the
                                                                      common market, as required by Article 92(3)(c) of the EC
                                                                      Treaty and the Guidelines for its application.
Action brought on 21 September 1998 by SocieÂteÂ
GeÂneÂrale against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                      The applicant further considers that the 1998 decision is
                       (Case T-149/98)                                illegal, inasmuch as it is based on the provisions of
                                                                      Article 2(c) of the decision of 26 July 1995, which are
                         (98/C 358/37)
                                                                      themselves unlawful under Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty;
                                                                      this meant that the Commission was constrained to limit
                (Language of the case: French)                        the inferences drawn by it from the deviation established
                                                                      in the evaluation of the cost of hive-off authorised in 1995
                                                                      to a mere increase in the quid pro quos to be provided by
An action against the Commission of the European                      CreÂdit Lyonnais, without examining any alternative
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     solutions.
Instance of the European Communities on 21 September
1998 by SocieÂteÂ GeÂneÂrale, established in Paris, represented
by Dominique Voillemot, of the Paris Bar, with an address             Contrary to the requirements imposed by the provisions of
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia                    Article 92(3) of the EC Treaty and by the Guidelines for
Manhaeve, 56Ð58 rue Charles Martel.                                   its application, the decision does not examine the
                                                                      alternative solutions which the French authorities could
                                                                      have adopted instead of granting additional aid: it rejects
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           from the outset, and without providing any reasons, the
                                                                      solution of a refusal to authorise the aid, even though that
                                                                      would have been more satisfactory from the point of view
Ð annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the Treaty, the
                                                                      of its effects on competition.
     Commission's decision of 20 May 1998, published in
     the Official Journal of the European Communities of
     8 August 1998, authorising the grant by the French
     authorities of additional aid to CreÂdit Lyonnais;               In the alternative, the applicant claims that the contested
                                                                      decision should be annulled inasmuch as it provides for
                                                                      quid pro quos which are inadequate to remedy the serious
Ð order repayment of the said aid;                                    distortions of competition resulting from the authorisation
                                                                      of the aid to CreÂdit Lyonnais as a whole, as required by
                                                                      Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.
Ð order the Commission to pay all of the costs and
     expenses incurred in the course of the present
     proceedings.