CELEX: C2003/112/81
Language: en
Date: 2003-05-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-95/03: Action brought on 8 March 2003 by the Asociación de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid and the Federación Catalana de Estaciones de Servicio against the Commission of the European Communities

10.5.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 112/43
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     principally, annul pursuant to Article 230 EC the decision
                                                                           —     annul the Commission Decision of 13 November 2002
      of the Commission of the European Communities of
                                                                                 in which it was decided not to raise any objections to
      17 December 2002 C(2002) 5087 final, by which the
                                                                                 the Disposición Transitoria Primera (First Transitional
      applicant was ordered to pay a fine of EUR 3 750 000,00
                                                                                 Provision) of Real Decreto Ley 6/2000 de Medidas
      at the end of a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the
                                                                                 Urgentes de Intensificación de la Competencia en Merca-
      ECSC Treaty (Case COMP/37.956 — Round bar steel for
                                                                                 dos de Bienes y Servicios (Royal Decree Law on Emer-
      reinforced concrete);
                                                                                 gency Measures to Promote Competition in Markets for
                                                                                 Goods and Services);
—     failing that, annul in part Decision C(2002) 5087 final,
      with a consequential reduction of the fine,
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     in any event, order the Commission of the European
      Communities to pay the costs.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
This action is directed against the same decision as that                  The applicants in the present action, which represent almost
challenged in Case T-27/03 (S.P. v Commission). The pleas in               all the existing service stations in Spain, are challenging the
law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in                 Commission’s failure to take action in respect of the exemption
that case. In addition to breach of rights of the defence, in that         of certain hypermarkets from the requirement to obtain
the communication of the Commission’s complaints did not                   permission from the authorities to vary the planning restric-
take into consideration whether there was any effect on intra-             tions on building and usage, an exemption introduced into
Community trade, the applicant alleges that the Commission                 Spanish law by the First Transitional Provision of Royal Decree
made an incorrect assessment of the length of its participation            Law No 6/2000 of 23 June on Emergency Measures to
in the agreement, decision or concerted practice, and of the               Promote Competition in Markets for Goods and Services. The
base prices, the prices of the ‘extra’ in terms of dimension and           stated objective of that exemption, which the applicants
the limitation of production and/or sales.                                 consider amounts to aid, was to facilitate the establishment of
                                                                           service stations on the premises of those hypermarkets, thereby
                                                                           promoting increased competition in the market for the retail
                                                                           supply of petroleum products in Spain.
                                                                           The Decision at issue in this action confirms that the disputed
                                                                           measure does not amount to State aid, since it does not entail
Action brought on 8 March 2003 by the Asociación de                        a transfer of State resources.
Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad
Autónoma de Madrid and the Federación Catalana de
Estaciones de Servicio against the Commission of the
                     European Communities                                  In support of their claims, the applicants submit:
                         (Case T-95/03)                                    —     that the measure at issue increases the value of the
                                                                                 beneficiaries’ property is immediately and without their
                                                                                 providing consideration and entails an exceptional
                        (2003/C 112/81)                                          reclassification of the land on which the hypermarkets are
                                                                                 located, abolishes the charges, costs and administrative
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                               procedures which are necessary under normal circum-
                                                                                 stances if a service station is to be opened and also
                                                                                 entails the State’s surrender of its right to receive the
                                                                                 consideration in money or money’s worth which would
                                                                                 normally be applicable.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 March 2003 by the Asociación                     —     Manifest error of assessment on the Commission’s part in
de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad                         that it carried out an incomplete and incorrect analysis of
Autónoma de Madrid and the Federación Catalana de Estacion-                      the national planning legislation, which vitiates the
es de Servicio, both established in Madrid, represented by José                  Decision as regards the transfer of State resources and the
María Jiménez Laiglesia and Marta Delgado Echevarría.                            ensuing interpretation of Article 87(1) EC.
 ---pagebreak--- C 112/44             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       10.5.2003
—    Manifest error of assessment as regards the Community               —     order the Commission to pay him by way of compen-
     case-law and rules on the requirement laid down in                        sation for non-material damage provisionally assessed, ex
     Article 87(1) of the Treaty that aid should be granted by                 aequo et bono, at EUR 10 000;
     the State or through State resources. It is asserted in this
     respect that nothing in Community case-law or in the
     legislation on State aid suggests that it is necessary that         —     order the Commission to pay the applicant compensation
     the resources to which the domestic authorities waive                     for damage to his career, provisionally, of EUR 1;
     their right should be formally recognised in the State
     budget.                                                             —     order the Commission to reimburse the expenses incurred
                                                                               by the applicant in preparing his defence in the context
—    Breach of the principle of sound administration, since the                of the inquiry and his administrative complaint against
     Commission did not raise objections to the disputed                       the decision of 17 May 2002;
     measure or initiate the formal investigation procedure
     laid down in Article 88(2) EC.                                      —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicants also allege that the Commission failed to
comply with the obligation to state reasons.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant is an official of the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities. Between 1993 and 1997, he assisted his
                                                                         immediate superior who was a member of the Executive
                                                                         Committee of the Institute for European-Latin American
                                                                         Relations (IRELA). When an internal inquiry was opened by
                                                                         the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) into the IRELA, the
Action brought on 10 March 2003 by Manel Camós Grau
                                                                         applicant was informed that it was possible that he too was
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     implicated in financial irregularities. The applicant asked the
                                                                         director of OLAF to find out as soon as possible whether there
                                                                         was any possible conflict of interest with regard to one of the
                        (Case T-96/03)                                   investigators and if appropriate to take the necessary steps to
                                                                         guarantee the objectivity of the inquiry. By the contested
                                                                         decision, the director of OLAF decided to remove from
                       (2003/C 112/82)                                   the inquiry the investigator concerned but left standing
                                                                         investigative measures and decisions proposed and adopted by
                                                                         him or to which he contributed.
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         In support of his claims, the applicant relies on four pleas in
                                                                         law:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               —     Infringement of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations
European Communities on 10 March 2003 by Manel Camós                           inasmuch as the contested decision was not notified to
Grau, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas,                  him and provides an inadequate statement of reasons;
lawyer.
                                                                         —     Breach of the duty to provide evidence of the proper
                                                                               conduct of the inquiry;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    annul the OLAF decision of 17 May 2002 removing one                 —     Manifest error of assessment in that the reason for the
                                                                               contested decision appears to be that the investigator
     of the investigators from the inquiry by the Office into
     the IRELA inasmuch as it leaves standing investigative                    concerned did not participate either in the monitoring or
     measures and decisions on its conduct adopted by the                      the handling of the case in question;
     investigator or to which he contributed, without re-
     examining or annulling them or requiring new inquiries;             —     Breach of the principle that inquiries should be fair and
                                                                               impartial.
—    annul the OLAF decision of 29 November 2002 implicitly
     rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint of
     29 July 2002 against the decision of 17 May 2002;