CELEX: C2002/191/26
Language: en
Date: 2002-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-186/02 P: Appeal brought on 17 May 2002 against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2002 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-92/00 and T-103/00 (not yet published) between Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others and Commission of the European Communities

10.8.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 191/15
Under Article 55 of the directive, the Member States were               Pleas in law and main arguments
required to comply with that directive by 13 May 2000.
Although, in the meantime, the Federal Republic of Germany
has substantially transposed the directive into national law
by means of the Strahlenschutzverordnung (Ordinance on
protection from radiation) of 20 July 2001, there are still no          Misuse of powers, discrimination, absence of effect on compe-
provisions regulating activities carried out in connection with         tition between undertakings and absence of effect on intra-
the clean-up of left-over waste from earlier activities and             Community trade: Neither the Government of the Rioja in its
works, the closure and clean-up of uranium-ore extraction               complaint nor the European Commission in its contested
facilities and plants, and the construction and operation of            decision have been concerned with distortion of competition
radiological installations facilities and stray radiation equip-        since their action against Ramondı́n was motivated by other
ment under the Röntgenverordnung (Ordinance on protection               interests and the judgment makes an error of assessment of
against damage from ionising radiation).                                the conditions governing State aid. The appellants flatly deny
                                                                        the specific and selective nature of the contested aid claimed
                                                                        by the Commission and found in the judgment at first instance
(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.                                          on the basis that the regional Law in question possesses those
                                                                        characteristics, since it harms those taxable persons to whom
                                                                        it does not apply where they are not located within the relevant
                                                                        territorial jurisdiction of the authority which enacted the
                                                                        legislation but are based within the wider national territory
                                                                        Member State. That argument cannot be accepted, since towns
                                                                        or regions with legislative powers may act only within their
                                                                        own territories and within the limit of their powers, just like
Appeal brought on 17 May 2002 against the judgment                      genuine full Member States, so that State aid proceedings are
delivered on 6 March 2002 by the Third Chamber,                         inappropriate, the matter being one of tax harmonisation,
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of                 which clearly falls outside the Commission’s powers.
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-92/00 and
T-103/00 (not yet published) between Territorio His-
tórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others
       and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        The Administración Foral (Regional Authority) had no dis-
                                                                        cretion either to include or exclude Ramondı́n from the
                        (Case C-186/02 P)                               legislation at issue, provided it fulfilled the relevant conditions.
                         (2002/C 191/26)
                                                                        In the alternative: if the Court should find that the measures at
                                                                        issue were selective, those measures are justified by the nature
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2002                and structure of the scheme.
by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
T-92/00 and T-103/00 between Territorio Histórico de Álava
— Diputación Foral de Álava and Others and Commission of
the European Communities was brought before the Court of                Ramondı́n was discriminated against when proceedings were
Justice of the European Communities on 17 May 2002 by                   brought against it specifically but not against the other
Ramondı́n SA and Ramondı́n Cápsulas SA, represented by                 undertakings concerned by the same Alava regional legislation,
Javier Lazcano-Iturburu Ayestaran, abogado, Gran Vı́a 55,               or by similar legislation enacted by the other Basque auth-
Logroño (La Rioja), Spain.                                             orities, the Navarrese authorities by extension and by many
                                                                        other territorial authorities in various Community countries.
The appellants claim that the Court should:
1.    declare the present appeal admissible and consequently:
                                                                        No competitor has complained about the grant of alleged State
2.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of          aid, nor has it lodged a complaint with any institution or
      6 March 2002 and annul the decision of the European               body either formally or informally against the hypothetical
      Commission of 22 December 1999 in so far as it                    advantages granted, nor have any complaints by third parties
      declares incompatible with the common market the fiscal           been upheld.
      measures laid down in Normas Forales (regional Laws)
      No 22/94 and 24/96 applicable to the appellants, Ramon-
      dı́n SA y Ramondı́n Cápsulas SA, and requires the Spanish
      State to recover them, and order the Commission to pay
      the costs of the proceedings.