CELEX: C2001/200/79
Language: en
Date: 2001-07-14 00:00:00
Title: Case C-175/01 P: Appeal brought on 23 April 2001 by British Coal Corporation against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-89/98 between National Association of Licenced Opencast Operators (NALOO) and Commission of the European Communities, supported by British Coal Corporation, International Power plc (formerly National Power plc) and PowerGen (UK) plc (formerly PowerGen plc)

14.7.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 200/43
There was, in any event, no power under Article 63(1) CS                 Pleas in law and main arguments
either to investigate, in or after 1994, an allegation of
discrimination in the pre-1990 period, or to take action in
respect of it.
                                                                         BCC relies on the following grounds of appeal.
If either or both of those pleas in law is correct, it follows that
the 1998 decision was valid and that the judgment of the CFI             (1) The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that
must be quashed. In the event that both those pleas in law are                 the 1994 Complaint was an expansion of the 1990
rejected, IP submits, in the alternative to its first two pleas:               Complaint and that therefore the Commission must be
                                                                               treated as having received a single Complaint.
that even if the Commission had the power to investigate the             (2) The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that
1994 complaint, it was under no obligation to do so; and                       NALOO had not failed to avail itself of the legal remedies
that the 1998 decision was in any event adequately reasoned.                   available to it to ensure protection of its rights.
                                                                         (3) The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that
(1) OJ C 234, 25.7.98, p. 36.
                                                                               an investigation of NALOO’s complaint with regard
                                                                               to the years 1986/87 to 1989/1990 was in no way
                                                                               incompatible with the principle of legal certainty.
                                                                         (4) Whether or not the 1991 Complaint and the 1994
                                                                               Complaint should be treated as a single Complaint, the
                                                                               Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that the
                                                                               matters complained of were existing infringements for
                                                                               the purposes of Article 66(7) ECSC and that the Com-
                                                                               mission was therefore empowered to act in relation to
Appeal brought on 23 April 2001 by British Coal Corpor-                        the position pre-April 1990.
ation against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2001
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                         (5) The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that
the European Communities in case T-89/98 (1) between                           the effect of the judgment of the Court of Justice in
National Association of Licenced Opencast Operators
                                                                               Hopkins was to empower the Commission to investigate
(NALOO) and Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                               that part of NALOO’s Complaint which alleged against
supported by British Coal Corporation, International                           BCC that it had applied unreasonable levels of royalty in
Power plc (formerly National Power plc) and PowerGen
                                                                               the years 1986/87 to 1989/90.
               (UK) plc (formerly PowerGen plc)
                                                                         (6) The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding
                        (Case C-175/01 P)                                      that since the Commission had the power to consider
                                                                               NALOO’s complaint relating to infringements alleged to
                                                                               have occurred in the years 1986/87 to 1989/90, the
                         (2001/C 200/79)                                       Commission was bound to undertake that examination.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2001              (7) The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that the
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                    Commission was empowered to adopt recommendations
European Communities in case T-89/98 between National                          under Article 66(7) in respect of alleged infringements
Association of Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO) and                         occurring in 1986/87 to 1989/1990 and in failing to
Commission of the European Communities, supported by                           hold that, contrary to the contention of NALOO, the
British Coal Corporation, International Power plc (formerly                    Commission had no power to take a decision under
National Power plc) and PowerGen (UK) plc (formerly Power-                     Article 66(7) ECSC.
Gen plc), was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 23 April 2001 by British Coal                    (8) The Court of First Instance erred in laws in failing to hold
Corporation, having its registered office in London, represented               that Article 65 ECSC has no application to the alleged
by D. Vaughan QC, D. Lloyd Jones QC and C. Mehta, solicitor.                   conduct of BCC in relation to the level of royalty.
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                              (9) The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that
                                                                               the 1998 Decision was vitiated by a failure to give
(1) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in                   reasons.
      Case T-89/98 dated 7 February 2001;
(2) dismiss by way of final judgment NALOO’s Application
      registered with the Court of First Instance on 8 June              (1) OJ C 234, 25.7.98, p. 36.
      1998;
(3) order that NALOO and/or the Commission pay BCC’s
      costs of the proceedings in Case T-89/98 and in this case.