Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 14 November 2003 by Izar Construcciones Navales SA against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-381/03)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 November 2003 by Izar Construcciones Navales SA, whose registered office is at Madrid, represented by Jaime Folguera Crespo, Edurne Navarro Varona and Alfonso Gutiérrez Hernández, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

-    Annul, pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty, the decision of the Commission of 27 May 2003 on the suspected aid granted to the Spanish State shipyards, and

-    Order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by IZAR in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in this case, a subsidiary of the Spanish public holding headed by the Sociedad Estatal de Participaciones Industriales (SEPI), which owns all the Spanish shipyards belonging to the State, challenges the decision by which the defendant institution has initiated the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty with regard to three cases of alleged aid consisting in the grant by SEPI to the civil shipyards in Cádiz and Juliana and to the Manises engines factory of loans amounting to EUR 194.4 million, a capital injection from SEPI to AESA (Astilleros Españoles SA) of EUR 252.4 million and compensation for losses paid by SEPI to the shipyards in Cádiz and Juliana and to the Manises engines factory amounting to EUR 68.2 million. The same decision also questions, according to the applicant, whether certain aid authorised in 1997 in the same sector, in relation to which the abovementioned aid ought to be considered additional aid, is compatible with Community law.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

- Infringement of Article 88 of the EC Treaty and of Regulations 659/1999 ¹ and 1013/1997, ² inasmuch as the contested decision, using as its legal basis Article 16 of Regulation No 659/1999, states that, were the aid authorised in 1997 to be considered illegal, steps must be taken for its recovery. The applicant submits in that respect that the Commission has unlawfully failed to apply to the aid in issue the procedure for existing aid provided for by Article 88(1) and Article 17 et seq of Regulation No 659/1999.

- Breach of the principle that legitimate expectations must be protected, inasmuch as the contested decision does not meet the applicant's expectations regarding the legality and irrevocability of the aid authorised in 1997.

- Breach of the principle of legal certainty as a result of the Commission's having acted out of time and the retrospective application of a provision to a situation arising prior to its entry into force. In the view of the applicant, the power to recover the 1997 aid could only have been exercised within the period prescribed therefor, that is to say before October 1999. That is so because exercise of the abovementioned power is contingent on the result of the monitoring programmes provided for by Regulation No 1013/1997 and the 1997 decision, which came to an end on the abovementioned date.

- Manifest error of law, inasmuch as the contested decision maintains that the alleged aid concerned thereby is incompatible with the common market merely because it constitutes aid in addition to that authorised for the Spanish shipyards by the aforementioned 1997 decision.

Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of proportionality and of the duty to state reasons for acts, in particular as regards, in the present case, the existence of State aid.

____________

¹ - Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1

² - Council Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 of 2 June 1997 on aid to certain shipyards under restructuring OJ 1997 L 148 , p. 1