Action brought on 16 November 2007 - DJEBEL v Commission

(Case T-422/07)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: DJEBEL SGPS, SA (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: M. Andrade Neves and S. Castro Caldeira)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 10 May 2007, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 24 August 2007, on State aid C 4/2006 (ex N 180/2005) - Portugal - Aid to Djebel (notified under document number C(2007) 1959) (OJ 2007 L 219, p. 30);

recognition by the Court of First Instance that:

the aid requested was and is essential in order to carry out the investment project consisting of acquiring capital in RASH and the consequent purchase of the Hotel Rio Atlântico;

the aid was requested before the investment was made;

DJEBEL's project was Grupo Pestana's first actual experience of internationalisation;

carrying out that project did not alter the conditions of competition for European undertakings, either for those established in the territory of the Community or for those operating abroad;

carrying out the project did not place Grupo Pestana in any situation of advantage that might have put it in a position to distort trade between Member States;

the aid requested by Djebel presents the same features as that which was requested for Vila Galé and which was approved by the Commission by its decision of 15 October 2003;

a declaration that the grant of aid to Djebel, in the terms and on the grounds indicated, is not incompatible with any provision of the EC Treaty whatsoever or with any legislative provision implementing the Treaty;

an order amending the decision adopted by the Commission on 10 May 2007 with regard to the aid requested by Djebel so as to authorise the grant of aid in the terms proposed by Djebel and the Portuguese authorities.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The State aid requested by the applicant is not incompatible with the applicable provisions of the EC Treaty.

Djebel fulfilled the legal conditions for having its candidature included in the SIME and the Commission is required to abide by the conditions for the admissibility of the candidature laid down by the law of the Portuguese Republic applicable to the matter.

The applicable Portuguese legislation provided that in respect of candidatures submitted before 31 January 2001 investment expenditure incurred after 1 July 1999 could be counted as reimbursable.

The State aid at issue was intended to provide incentives for and to support the internationalisation of Grupo Pestana and was requested before the investment was made.

The applicant is not to suffer loss by reason of the dilatoriness of the responsible authorities in evaluating the project.

The aid requested by the applicant cannot be assessed in the light of the present economic and financial situation.

Without the aid at issue, the applicant would not have made the investment corresponding to the project in question.

Grupo Pestana's first experience of internationalisation consists of the purchase made by the applicant in connection with the investment plan.

In 1999 Grupo Pestana did not possess the financial means to carry out by itself the investment in Brazil.

Making that investment made no significant impact on trading conditions in the EU.

There is no link whatsoever between the purchase made by the applicant in Brazil and Grupo Pestana's expansion in Portugal.

The investment project submitted by the applicant and the aid granted it are compatible with the rules of the EC Treaty, in particular with Article 87(3)(c) EC.

The aid granted to the applicant facilitated the development of an economic activity, so falling within the scope of the exception provided for in Article 83(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.

There has been no infringement whatsoever of the provisions of the EC Treaty or of secondary legislation thereunder and no distorting effect on competition in the common market.

In accordance with the principle of equal treatment, the applicant maintains that, given that the investment project in question presents all the features presented by the Vila Galé project - the subject of the Commission's decision of 15 October 2003 - the Commission's decision on State aid C 4/2006 ought to have been the same as the former decision.

____________