Action brought on 22 December 2006 - Belgium v Commission

(Case T-403/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, Agent, and J. Meyers, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul the contested decision pursuant to Article 230 EC;

order the Commission (Eurostat) to pay the costs in connection with this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's decision, contained in the letter of the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) of 18 October 2006, to amend the data relating to the government deficit and the government debt of Belgium for 2005 and to provide the data thus amended, pursuant to Article 8h(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 of 22 November 1993 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the EC Treaty, ¹ as amended. The applicant objects to two amendments made by the Commission, namely the classification of the Fonds de l'infrastructure ferroviaire (FIF) (Railway Infrastructure Fund) in the public administration sector rather than in the non-financial corporations sector for the application of the European system of accounts 1995 (ESA 95) ² and the recording of a capital transfer of EUR 7 400 million on account of the assumption by the State (FIF) in 2005 of the debts of the Société nationale des Chemins de fer belges (SNCB).

The applicant relies on the following pleas in law in support of its application for annulment.

As regards the classification of FIF in the public administration sector, the applicant puts forward a plea alleging infringement of Article 8h(2) of Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 and paragraphs 2.12, 3.19 and 3.27 to 3.37 of ESA 95. The applicant submits that FIF must be categorised as an 'institutional unit' within the meaning of paragraph 2.12 of ESA 95 and as a 'market producer' under the criteria set out in paragraphs 3.19 and 3.27 to 3.37 of ESA 95, and must as such be classified outside the public administration sector. The applicant therefore claims that the contested decision is wrong to find that FIF does not satisfy that twofold condition for 2005.

In the alternative, as regards the capital transfer of EUR 7 400 million from the Belgian State to SNCB on account of FIF's assumption in 2005 of SNCB's debts, the applicant relies on three pleas. The first is based on infringement of Article 8h(2) of Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 and of paragraphs 1.33, 1.44(c), 4.165(f) and 6.30 of ESA 95. The applicant claims that the allocation of the debt in question to FIF does not flow from a 'transaction' within the meaning of paragraph 1.33 of ESA 95 but from a 'restructuring' within the meaning of paragraphs 1.44(c) and 6.30 of ESA 95. As an alternative plea, the applicant submits that, even if the allocation of the debt to FIF were to be analysed as a 'transaction' within the meaning of paragraph 1.33 of ESA 95, it does not involve a capital transfer for the purposes of paragraph 4.165(f) of ESA 95. The second plea put forward in connection with the objection to the recording of the capital transfer of EUR 7 400 million from the Belgian State to SNCB alleges breach of Article 253 EC in that, according to the applicant, the Commission failed to give a sufficient statement of reasons for the contested decision on that point. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the principle of protection of legitimate expectations in that it disregards the opinion expressed by the Commission (Eurostat) in its email of 13 August 2004, in which a Commission expert agreed with the analysis submitted by the applicant in this case.

____________

¹ - OJ 1993 L 332, p. 7

² - Approved by Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community (OJ 1996 L 310, p. 1)