CELEX: C1998/299/70
Language: en
Date: 1998-09-26 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 20 July 1998 by RJB Mining plc against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-111/98)

26.9.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 299/39
customers are the UK electricity power generators, but it               aid to mines which, on the applicant's own
is also trying to find a market for its coal overseas, in               calculations and those of its advisers, can never be
particular in Germany and Spain. On 10 June 1998, the                   viable. Second, the effect of the aid is contributing
Commission adopted the contested Decision which was                     towards reducing permanently the production capacity
addressed to Germany. Article 1 of the Decision purported               of the lowest cost large-scale producer of steam coal in
to approve operating aid of DEM 6 299 million under                     the Community and the producer with the best (if not
Article 3 of the Code (1), closure aid of DEM 3 205                     the only) long-term prospects of viability having
million under Article 4 of the Code, operating aid of                   regard to current world market conditions.
DEM 87 million of the Code to maintain underground
miners, aid of DEM 200 million to cover exceptional
                                                                   (1) Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December
losses under Article 5 of the Code to Ruhrkohle AG,
                                                                       1993, establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal
Saarbergwerke AG, Preussag Anthrazit GmbH and Sophia                   industry (OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12).
Jacob GmbH and, finally, aid of DEM 609,2 million to
cover exceptional costs under Article 5 of the Code to
Ruhrkohle AG, Saarbergwerke AG and Sophia Jacob AG,
enabling those companies to cover the cost which result
and have resulted from the restructuring of the coal
industry and which do not relate to current production.
                                                                   Action brought on 20 July 1998 by RJB Mining plc
The applicant claims to be gravely concerned by this                  against the Commission of the European Communities
decision, as the British coal industry has over the last 10
years undergone massive restructuring and rationalisation.                                 (Case T-111/98)
                                                                                            (98/C 299/70)
The applicant seeks annulment of the contested decision
on the grounds of:
                                                                                   (Language of the case: English)
Ð lack of competence: the Code expressly provides that
    no aid may be granted until it has been approved by            An action against the Commission of the European
    the Commission. In breach of this requirement, the             Communities was brought before the Court of First
    Commission on 10 June 1998 apparently purported to             Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 1998
    approve retroactively aid which had already been               by RJB Mining plc, represented by Mark Brealey and
    granted by the German Government in 1997,                      Jonathan Lawrence, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the Offices of Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð
                                                                   10, rue Mathias Hardt, boite postale 39.
Ð lack of reasoning: despite the requirement of
    transparency on the ECSC Treaty, the contested
    Decision fails to explain the basis on which the aid
    was granted. Under the Code, operating aid can only            The applicant claims that the Court should:
    be granted if an undertaking or production unit has a
    reasonable prospect of achieving viability within the
    foreseeable future, yet the contested Decision contains        Ð annul the Commission Decision of 3 June 1998
    no facts which would enable the applicant to verify                 relating to financial interventions from Spain to the
    the viability of any mine. Similarly, the Code provides             coal industry from 1994 to 1998, which purport to
    that closure aid can only be granted if the relevant                authorise Spain to grant aid to its coal industry, and
    production      unit   will   (save     in   exceptional
    circumstances) close at a date prior to 2002. The
    contested Decision does not specify any dates for
    closure of production units. Moreover, the contested           Ð order that the Commission pay the costs of the action,
    Decision implicitly rejects, without reasons, a                     including those of the applicant.
    complaint field with the Commission by the applicant
    on 5 May 1998,
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð infringement of the principle of good administration:
    the applicant formally complained about the grant of
                                                                   The applicant is the same as in Case T-110/98 (application
    the German aid on 5 May 1998. On 10 June 1998 the
                                                                   for the annulment of the Commission Decision of 10 June
    Commission acknowledged receipt of the complaint
                                                                   1998 relating to financial interventions from Germany to
    and stated that the applicant would be kept informed.
                                                                   the coal industry in 1997).
    Yet on the same day the Commission adopted the
    contested Decision,
                                                                   On 3 June 1998 the Commission adopted the three
Ð manifest infringement of the Treaty and the Code:                contested Decisions which were addressed to the Kingdom
    First, the contested Decision has purported to approve         of Spain: the first Decision relates to aid from Spain to its
 ---pagebreak--- C 299/40               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26.9.98
coal mining industry for the years 1994, 1995 and 1996;                       Removal from the register of Case T-49/98 (1)
the second and third Decisions concern the years 1997                                           (98/C 299/72)
and 1998. All of the contested Decisions contain operating
aids under Article 3 of the Code (1), closure aids under                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
Article 4 of the Code as well as aids to cover exceptional
charges under Article 5 of the Code.                                   By order of 15 July 1998 the President of the Second
                                                                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
The applicant claims to be gravely concerned by these                  Case T-49/98 ALZ NV v. Commission of the European
Decisions, as the British coal industry has over the last 10           Communities.
years undergone massive restructuring and rationalisation
and as the company was also trying to find a market for                (1) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998.
its coal overseas, in particular in Germany and Spain.
The pleas in law and main arguments are, with the
exception of an alleged infringement of the principle of
good administration, identical to those raised in Case                 Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-56/98 and
T-110/98 (2).                                                                                    T-56/98 R (1)
                                                                                                (98/C 299/73)
(1) Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December
    1993, establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal                      (Language of the case: English)
    industry (OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12).
(2) See page 38 of this Official Journal.                              By order of 17 June 1998 the President of the First
                                                                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                       Cases T-56/98 and T-56/98 R VTech Electronics (UK) plc
                                                                       v. Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 166, 30.5.1998.
    Partial removal from the register of Case T-185/96 (1)
                          (98/C 299/71)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case T-60/98 (1)
                                                                                                (98/C 299/74)
By order of 10 July 1998 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                (Language of the case: French)
Communities has ordered the removal of the name of the
applicant Max Labat Automobiles 17 from the list of                    By order of 2 July 1998 the President of the Second
names of the applicants in Case T-185/96 Max Labat                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Automobiles 17 and Riviera Auto Service Ets Dalmasso v.                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Commission of the European Communities.                                Case T-60/98 Ecord Consortium for Russian Cooperation,
                                                                       composed of the following members: Danagro Adviser A/
                                                                       S, Plunkett Foundation and Irish Agri-Food Development
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.                                                Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998.