Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 13 May 2004 by Asklepios Kliniken GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-167/04)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 May 2004 by Asklepios Kliniken GmbH, Königstein-Falkenstein (Germany), represented by K. Füßer, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

-    declare that, by failing to take any decision pursuant to Article 4(2), (3) or (4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 in response to the applicant's letter of complaint of 20 January 2003, the Commission is in breach of its obligations under Article 88 EC and Article 10(1) and Article 13(1) of Regluation (EC) No 659/1999.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant is a company which specialises in hospital management. It is incorporated under private law and is owned exclusively by private interests. Since January 2003, it has been endeavouring to obtain a decision from the Commission under Article 4(2), (3) or (4) of Regluation (EC) No 659/1999 in relation to alleged aid in favour of publicly-owned hospitals in the Federal Republic of Germany.

The applicant maintains that privately-owned hospitals must generally finance themselves from sums paid under health-care arrangements entered into with the appropriate health-insurance schemes and their central associations and, where applicable, from direct contributions for hospital construction under funding arrangements in place in the relevant Land. By contrast, publicly-owned hospitals also benefit from the fact that their regular operating losses are consistently covered by the relevant public authorities. In the applicant's opinion, those payments constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC which not only is subject to a notification requirement under Article 88(3) EC but is also incompatible with the common market.

The applicant also maintains that the complaint is well founded as the Commission has failed to act notwithstanding a duty to act upon receipt of the complaint.

____________