CELEX: C2004/007/64
Language: en
Date: 2004-01-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-343/03: Action brought on 8 October 2003 by Deutsche Post AG and Securicor Omega Express Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

C 7/34                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.1.2004
1.    Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
      EUR 3 000, in addition to the sum of EUR 1 500 already                                           INSTANCE
      awarded by the Appointing Authority.
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action.                                                          of 9 July 2003
3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           in Case T-288/02 R: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) v
                                                                                   Commission of the European Communities
(1) OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.
                                                                                 (Procedure for interim relief — Urgency — None)
                                                                                                      (2004/C 7/63)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                               (Language of the case: French)
                        of 21 October 2003
in Case T-392/02: Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV v Council of
                      the European Union (1)
                                                                           In Case T-288/02 R: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT),
                                                                           established in Pathumthani (Thailand), represented by H. Teis-
(Directive 70/524/EEC — Community authorisation, linked
                                                                           siers du Cros, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
to the person responsible for putting into circulation, of an
                                                                           bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
additive in animal feedingstuff — Transitional rules —
                                                                           (Agents: P.-J. Kuijper and B. Schöfer) — application for
Withdrawal of the authorisation — Action for annulment —
                                                                           suspension of operation of the decision of the Commission of
Admissibility — Conditions for withdrawal — Precautionary
                                                                           22 February 2002 to conclude a research contract with the
principle — Principles of equal treatment, legal certainty,
                                                                           Center for Energy-Environment Research and Development —
              sound administration and good faith)
                                                                           the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                                                                           9 July 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                            (2004/C 7/62)
                    (Language of the case: French)                         1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                                                                           2.    Costs are reserved.
In Case T-392/02: Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV, established in
Weesp (Netherlands), represented by C. Meijer, F. Herbert and
M. L. Struys, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Balta
and M. Ruggery Laderchi), supported by Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: A. Bordes), application for the
annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1756/2002 of
23 September 2002 amending Directive 70/524/EEC concern-
ing additives in feedingstuffs as regards withdrawal of the                Action brought on 8 October 2003 by Deutsche Post
authorisation of an additive and amending Commission Regu-                 AG and Securicor Omega Express Limited against the
lation (EC) No 2430/1999 (OJ 2002 L 265, p. 1) — the                               Commission of the European Communities
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
N. J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 October 2003, in                                           (Case T-343/03)
which it:
1.    Dismisses the application.                                                                      (2004/C 7/64)
2.    Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and pay those
      incurred by the Council, including those incurred in the                                (Language of the case: German)
      interlocutory proceedings.
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs, including those
      incurred in the interlocutory proceedings.                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
(1) OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.                                                   European Communities on 8 October 2003 by Deutsche Post
                                                                           AG, Bonn (Germany) and Securicor Omega Express Limited,
                                                                           Sutton (United Kingdom), represented by T. Lübbig, lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.1.2004             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 7/35
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              of the allegations made by the applicants of cross-subsidies for
                                                                         parcels and express parcel operations, the Decision is therefore
                                                                         vitiated by a failure to state reasons (infringement of
—     annul the Decision of the Commission of the European               Article 253 EC).
      Communities of 27 May 2003 on State aid N 784/2002
      — United Kingdom, ‘Government rural network support
      funding, debt payment funding and rolling working                  (1) OJ L 247, p. 27.
      capital loan to Post Office Limited’, document number
      C(2003) 1652 final, in so far as it terminates the State aid
      complaint procedure initiated by the first applicant’s
      letter of 3 December 2002;
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                         Action brought on 9 October 2003 by Eugénio Branco,
                                                                         Lda, in liquidation, against the Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                                pean Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                  (Case T-347/03)
By letter of 3 December 2002, the applicants requested the                                         (2004/C 7/65)
Commission to investigate the costs and earnings structures of
the postal undertaking Consignia plc (Royal Mail Group plc)                                 (Language of the case: French)
as regards parcels and express parcel service as to the existence
of a cross-subsidy.
                                                                         An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
The applicants object to the termination by means of the                 the European Communities on 9 October 2003 against the
contested decision of the State aid complaint procedure which            Commission of the European Communities by Eugénio Bran-
they initiated. In particular, the applicants complain that, by          co, Lda, in liquidation, of Lisbon, Portugal, represented by
that contested approval decision, the Commission terminated              Bolota Belchior, lawyer.
its State aid investigation in respect of the subject of the
complaint while it was still at a preliminary stage.
                                                                         The applicants claim that Court of First Instance should:
The applicants take the view that if there had been an                   —     annul in its entirety Commission Decision C(87) 0860 of
appropriate and comprehensive examination of the obser-                        23 October 2002 which reduced the European Social
vations which the applicants submitted under the complaint                     Fund (EFS) contribution for training actions approved
procedure, the Commission would have encountered serious                       by the Commission (File 870302P3) and required the
problems and doubts as to the compatibility with the common                    applicant to repay the sum of EUR 13 929,7, and
market of the facts put forward in the complaint and would
have had to initiate a full assessment. In effect, the applicants’       —     order the defendant to pay the costs
complaint demonstrates in detail that the parcel service of the
United Kingdom’s Post is not achieving the coverage of costs
required under the Commission’s Decision of 19 June 2002
on measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
for Deutsche Post AG (1) and that therefore the suspicion of a
cross-subsidy — described in the Deutsche Post Decision as
inadmissible State aid — is founded as regards parcel services.
                                                                         The applicant maintains that the contested reduction and
                                                                         obligation to make a refund derive from the fact that the
                                                                         Commission failed to approve the request for payment of the
The applicants maintain that the parcel services which form              balance under the EFS financing procedure and did not select
the subject-matter of the applicants’ complaint are mentioned            certain expenses submitted by it.
in the Commission’s Decision only in passing and without
separate consideration of individual spheres of activity. The
Commission did not examine whether ‘Parcel Services’ consti-             The applicant submitted to the Portuguese European Social
tute the provision of a universal parcel service or, for example,        Fund Department (DAFSE) its application for EFS funding for
the handling of express parcels and, accordingly, an area of             a vocational training action on 29 June 1986, and the
competition which has long since been liberalised. In the light          Commission declared its application successful.