CELEX: C1996/077/32
Language: en
Date: 1996-03-16 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 18 December 1995 by Société Bretagne Angleterre Irlande (BAI) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-230/95)

No C 77/ 14            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        16 . 3 . 96
Action brought on 18 December 1995 by Societe Bretagne               therefore to the beneficiary of the aid, it is unfair for the
Angleterre Irlande ( BAI) against the Commission of the              complainant not to be informed of it. The injustice is all
                     European Communities                            the greater because, unknown to the complainant, the
                        ( Case T-230/95 )                            agreement to which it objects was drawn up by the State
                                                                     concerned in conjunction with the Commission, according
                           ( 96/C 77/32 )
                                                                     to its own press release. Consequently, the inquiry into the
                                                                     matter was neither impartial nor diligent.
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Because it does not have the text of the Commission 's
An action against the Commission of the European                     decision, the applicant finds itself in the following position :
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    either the Commission's decision did not put an end to
Instance of the European Communities on 18 December                  the infringement complained of by the applicant and
 1995 by Societe Bretagne Angleterre Irlande ( BAI ), a              is unlawful, or that decision gives all operators the
company whose registered office is in Roscoff ( France ),            opportunity of entering into agreements with State
represented by Jean-Michel Payre, of the Paris Bar, with an          authorities which make it possible for them to ensure that
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 their vessels are profitable. In the first case, the applicant
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue.                                            would be unable to exercise its right to take legal action,
                                                                     because it does not know the reasons on which the decision
                                                                     is based . In the second case, it would for the same reason be
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          unable to make use of such an opportunity.
— order the Commission to compensate the loss suffered
     by the applicant because it has not been informed of the
     decision taken by the Commission in Case C-32/93 ( Ex
     NN 40/93 ) or, if it should be so informed during the
     proceedings, because the Commission is late in fulfilling
     its obligation,                                                 Action brought on 19 December 1995 by SIC — Sociedade
                                                                     Independente de Comunica^ao, SA against the Commission
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                             of the European Communities
                                                                                              Case T-231/95 )
Pleans in law and main arguments:                                                              ( 96/C 77/33 )
The applicant, a company governed by French law which                An action against the Commission of the European
was for many years the sole operator of a shipping line              Communities was brought before the Court of First
between the ports of Plymouth in England and Santander in            Instance of the European Communities on 19 December
Spain, objects to the fact that the Commission has failed,           1995 by SIC — Sociedade Independente de Comunica^ao,
despite a number of requests and formal notices, to inform           SA, whose registered office is at 119 Estrada da Outurela ,
the applicant of the terms of a decision given in response to a      Carnaxide, Linda-a-Velha, represented by Carlos Botelho
complaint lodged under Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty.            Moniz and Ana Santos Reis, Advogados, with chambers at
                                                                     63 6° Rua Castilho, Lisbon, with an address for service in
That complaint concerned aids granted by the 'Diputacion             Luxembourg at the chambers of Aloyse May, 31
Foral de Vizcaya' ( Regional Government of Biscay ) and the          Grand-rue .
' Gobierno Vasco' ( Basque Government ) to a company,
Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya SA, 50 % controlled by the United
Kingdom company Peninsular and Oriental European                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
Ferries ( P&O ), which has since March 1993 been operating
a competing line between the ports of Portsmouth and                — find and declare that the defendant has, in breach of
Bilbao . More specifically, those authorities had undertaken             Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and of general
to purchase travel vouchers from Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya                principles of law, failed in its duty to give a decision on
amounting to the sum of Pta 1 314 190 000 during the line's              the request for a procedure to be commenced under
first three years of operation during which it was forecast to           Article 93 ( 2 ) made to it by the applicant in its complaint
be running at a loss. Those payments were to be made even if             ( No IV/34.811 ) concerning the aid granted by the
the crossings did not take place; the price agreed was                   Portuguese Government to RTP — Radiotelevisao
substantially higher than the shipping company's public                  Portuguesa , SA,
fares .
                                                                    — order the Commission to pay the costs in their
At the beginning of June 1995 the applicant learned from                 entirety.
the newspapers that the Commission had given a decision,
but it still does not know either the content of that decision       Pleas in law and main arguments:
or the date on which it was adopted, even though it has
requested the information a number of times .                       The applicant states that Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty lays
                                                                     down a rule concerning the incompatibility of aid with the
First of all, the applicant maintains that once a decision has      common market; Article 92 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) allows exceptions to
been adopted, its existence made public in a press release           that rule . The Commission has sole competence to decide as
and its content imparted to the State in question, and               to the availability of exceptions, in other words to decide as