CELEX: C1999/174/18
Language: en
Date: 1999-06-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-55/99: Action brought on 25 February 1999 by the Confederación Española de Transporte de Mercancías against the European Commission

C 174/8                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.6.1999
Action brought on 19 February 1999 by Nicolaos Progoul-                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
is against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          — annul Articles 3 and 4 of the Commission Decision of
                          (Case T-53/99)                                       1 July 1998 concerning the Spanish Plan Renove Industrial
                                                                               system of aid for the purchase of commercial vehicles;
                         (1999/C 174/17)                                  — order the European Commission to pay the costs.
                   (Language of the case: English)                        Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 By the present action, the applicant contests the decision of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                European Commission by which it found that the agreement
European Communities on 19 February 1999 by Nicolaos                      concluded by the Comisión Delegada para Asuntos Econ-
Progoulis, represented by Mr Vassilis Akritidis and Mr Jonathan           ómicos (Executive Committee for Economic Affairs) concern-
Branton, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 ing a programme of measures to support the renewal of
Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt.                   the commercial vehicle fleet (the ‘Plan Remove Industrial’)
                                                                          constitutes, in part, State aid. That programme is aimed at
                                                                          facilitating the financing of the purchase of new commercial
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               vehicles by natural persons and by small and medium-sized
1. annul the defendant’s decision failing to amend the appli-             enterprises (SMEs), subject to the condition that another
    cant’s staff report for the period 1 July 1995 to 30 June             commercial vehicle at least ten years old — other than a road
    1997                                                                  tractor — should be definitively scrapped. The contested
                                                                          decision stated that the only items which did not constitute
2. order that the costs of and occasioned by the proceedings              State aid were grants of aid to regional public bodies and
    be borne by the defendant                                             bodies providing local public services and to natural persons
                                                                          or SMEs engaged in activities other than transport on an
3. order that compensation for non-material damage suffered               exclusively local or regional scale.
    in a minimum amount of BFR 100 000 be awarded to the
    applicant.                                                            The application is based on the following claims:
                                                                          — Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                expectations. The applicant maintains in that regard that
                                                                               recipients of assistance under the Plan Renove, who did not
The applicant, an official in Directorate General XI.E.1 of the                receive any information from the Spanish administrative
Commission, seeks the amendment of his staff report for the                    authorities concerning the procedure followed before the
period from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997, on the ground                         Commission, were not in a position to appreciate factors
that his tasks, duties, responsibilities and performance were                  indicating the possible existence of any public subsidy or
misdescribed.                                                                  aid. Moreover, it was reasonable for those recipients to
                                                                               regard the Renove measures as being covered by the
                                                                               Community ‘de minimis’ rule.
The applicant submits in this regard that the contested decision
infringes general principles of law, Article 1 of the General             — Incorrect assessment of the existence of State aid, inasmuch
Provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations                as the plan in question is not intended to benefit any
and Article 3 (c) (ii) and (iii) of the Guide to Staff Reports. The            particular undertakings or the production of any particular
infringements concerned also involve a manifest error in the                   goods. In the applicant’s view, the present case concerns
assessment of the facts made by the AIPN, vitiating the                        provisions of a general nature which are applicable to any
assessment of his performance.                                                 natural person or SME, without distinction as to origin or
                                                                               nationality, and which do not favour any particular
                                                                               production sector, since no conditions whatever are
                                                                               imposed regarding the origin of the vehicle concerned.
                                                                          — Absence of a statement of reasons concerning distortion
                                                                               of competition and the effect on trade between Member
Action brought on 25 February 1999 by the Confedera-                           States. The applicant maintains in that connection that the
ción Española de Transporte de Mercancı́as against the                       plan in question is basically and primarily intended to
                     European Commission                                       cover vehicles which are not in competition with those in
                                                                               other Member States of the Community, since vehicles
                          (Case T-55/99)                                       which are engaged in such competition are renewed long
                                                                               before expiry of the period of ten years which must elapse
                         (1999/C 174/18)                                       under the plan. The applicant further states that, at most,
                                                                               the Plan Renove Industrial may prove to be less favourable
                                                                               to haulage contractors established outside Spain, inasmuch
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                              as recourse to it would involve them in additional expense;
                                                                               nevertheless, such haulage contractors would then be in a
An action against the European Commission was brought                          more advantageous position than those established in
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 Spain, on account of the much lower interest rates
on 25 February 1999 by the Confederación Española de                         prevailing in their respective countries. Moreover, the
Transporte de Mercancı́as, established in Madrid, Spain, rep-                  Plan Renove Industrial does not automatically exclude
resented by Jorge Pérez Villar, of the Madrid Bar.                             undertakings established in other Member States.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.6.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 174/9
The applicant association concludes its arguments by asserting           The applicant raises the following pleas in law:
that insufficient reasons have been given for the requirement
that the aid in issue be repaid, and that this infringes the             — infringement of an essential procedural requirement in
principles of proportionality, the protection of legitimate                   that the contested regulation has provided no or at least
expectations, equal treatment and the prohibition of arbitrari-               no clear legal basis and/or that the joinder of two legal
ness.                                                                         bases results in a breach of the essential procedural
                                                                              requirements laid down in Directive 70/524/EEG; (2)
                                                                         — manifest error of assessment on the part of the Council in
                                                                              the application of Article 3(a)(e) of Directive 70/524/EEC;
                                                                         — infringement by the Council of fundamental principles of
                                                                              law forming part of the Community legal order, such as the
Action brought on 11 March 1999 by Alpharma Inc.                              proportionality principle, the principle of the protection of
          against the Council of the European Union                           legitimate expectations and the right to be heard and,
                                                                              finally;
                         (Case T-70/99)
                                                                         — insufficient reasoning for the contested regulation and,
                                                                              consequently, infringement by the Council of Article 190
                        (1999/C 174/19)                                       of the EC Treaty.
                   (Language of the case: English)                       (1) See also pending Case T-13/99 Pfizer Animal Health v Councilnot
                                                                             yet published in the OJ.
                                                                         (2) Council Directive of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in
An action against the Council of the European Union was                      feedingstuffs, OJ L 270, 14.12.1970, p. 1.
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 11 March 1999 by Alpharma Inc., Fort Lee
(the United States of America) represented by Mr. Gavin
Robert, London, and Mr. Bemard Van de Walle de Ghelcke,
Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11, Rue Goethe, Luxembourg.
                                                                         Action brought on 15 March 1999 by Eli Lilly and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Company Ltd against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                     Communities
— annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of 17 Decem-
    ber 1998 amending, as regards withdrawal of the authoris-                                       (Case T-75/99)
    ation of certain antibiotics, Directive 70/524/EC concern-
    ing additives in feedingstuffs; or                                                             (1999/C 174/20)
— annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 in so far as it
    relates to withdrawal of authorisation of bacitracin zinc;                               (Language of the case: English)
    and
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— order the Council to pay the costs.                                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 15 March 1999 by Eli Lilly and
                                                                         Company Ltd, represented by Denis Waelbroeck and Dirk
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Brinckman, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, B.P. 39, L-2010.
The applicant, a company incorporated under the laws of the
State of Delaware and established in the United States of                The applicant claims that the Court should:
America, produces an antibiotic feed additive called bacitracin
zinc, in formulations appropriate for use as an antimicrobial            — declare, pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty that, in
growth promoter in animals. The applicant is the only                         breach of Article 176 of the EC Treaty, the Commission
manufacturer and the most important supplier of bacitracin                    has failed to take the necessary measures to comply with
zinc in the EEA and markets its additive, which is produced in                the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 June
Norway, under the trade name Albac.                                           1998 in Case T-120/96 (Lilly Industries Ltd v Commission);
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay compensation of ECU
The contested regulation(1) withdraws the autorisation to use                 2.6 million, in accordance with Articles 178 and 215,
and market bacitracin zinc as an additive in animal feeding-                  second paragraph, of the EC Treaty, for the material and
stuffs with effect from 30 June 1999. Banning bacitracine zinc                non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result
was found to be a necessary safeguard pending further                         of the Commission’s failure to act;
comprehensive evidence as to the possibility of antibiotic
resistance and the assessment of the risk of transfer from               — order the Commission to pay compensation of ECU 1 000
animals to humans. Such transfer of resistance would reduce                   per day from the date of the judgment in the present case
the effectiveness of bacitracin zinc used as a human medicinal                to the date until such time as the Commission has taken
product. Three other products, spiramycin, virginiamycin and                  the measures necessary in order to comply with the
tylosin phosphate, were banned at the same time. The ban is                   judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-120/96;
to be reviewed no later than 31 December 2000.                                and