Notice for the OJ
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Action brought on 9 June 2004 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-215/04)
Language of the case: English
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 June 2004 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by M. Bethell, agent, assisted by D. Anderson QC and H. Davies, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
- annul the contested decision in its entirety;
- order the Commission to pay the applicants costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The applicant contests the Commission decision of 30 March 2004 on the aid scheme which the United Kingdom is planning to implement with regard to the Government of Gibraltar Corporation Tax Reform1. In the decision, the Commission finds that the proposed tax reform constitutes state aid incompatible with the common market.
In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission's conclusions as to regional selectivity are vitiated by material errors of fact and are wrong in law.
According to the applicant, Gibraltar, which is a colony whose self-government the United Kingdom is obliged to develop under the UN Charter, does not form part of the United Kingdom as a matter of domestic, international and Community law. Furthermore, the applicant states that Gibraltar is distinct from the United Kingdom and that it receives no subsidy or financing from the United Kingdom. The applicant also claims that the tax systems of the United Kingdom and of Gibraltar are entirely separate and unconnected and that the reform proposals do not constitute a tax reduction to the tax system applicable in the United Kingdom. The Commission's approach also infringes, according to the applicant, the principle of equal treatment in that measures adopted by a symmetrically devolved region are not to be treated as state aid whereas the same measures adopted by a asymmetrically devolved region are.
The applicant contends that the Commission's conclusions with respect to material selectivity are wrong in law and are insufficiently reasoned.
The applicant finally submits that the Commission has infringed the applicant's right to be heard in that it did not raise certain matters upon which it has sought to base its decision during the course of the procedure under Article 88(2) EC.
____________1 - State aid C 66 /2002 - Gibraltar government corporation tax reform