Action brought on 28 August 2007 - National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators v Commission

(Case T-318/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators (Chester-le-Street, United Kingdom) (represented by: H. Bracegirdle, Solicitor, M. Hoskins and C. West, Barristers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The Commission Decision of 18 June 2007 be annulled.

The Commission pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's Decision in Case COMP/35.821 of 18 June 2007 by which the Commission rejected the applicant's complaint made in 1990 that members of its association had been the victims of a price discrimination as the prices paid by the Central Electricity Generating Board ('CEGB') between 1984-1990 for coal produced by members of the applicant was lower than the prices paid by the CEGB for coal produced by the British Coal Corporation ('BCC'), without there being any objective justification for that difference in treatment.

The Commission found in the contested decision that there was a difference between the prices paid by the CEGB to the applicant's members and the prices paid to the BCC, but sustained that the BCC and the applicant's members did not supply coal under comparable conditions. The CEGB was therefore justified in paying higher prices for the BCC's coal in order to ensure that it would meet its statutory duty to supply the electricity needed in the United Kingdom.

In support of its application, the applicant contends that the Commission's finding that the BCC and the applicant's members did not supply coal under comparable conditions was not supported by the evidence upon which the Commission based its decision.

Furthermore, the applicant submits that the payment of a premium price for the BCC's coal would constitute state aid that had not been notified and which would therefore be unlawful.

Moreover, the applicant alleges that the Commission's findings are inconsistent with a previous Commission decision from 1991 in respect of the same complaint.

As regards the Commission's rejection of the applicant's complaint in relation to the period from 1984 to 1986 on grounds of inadmissibility and lack of Community interest, the applicant submits that:

the Commission erred in finding that it no longer enjoys an exclusive competence under the ECSC Treaty to rule on the existence of discrimination in the said period;

the Commission erred in finding that the applicant's members can bring claims before the national courts in respect of the said period; and

the delay in resolving the issues raised in the applicant's complaint from 1990 is the result of previous legal errors made by the Commission.

____________