Action brought on 22 February 2008 - Centre de coordination Carrefour v Commission

(Case T-94/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Centre de coordination Carrefour SNC (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: X. Clarebout and K. Platteau, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul the contested decision in as much as it does not lay down a transitional period as required by the Forum 187 ¹ judgment;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By decision 2003/755/EC of 17 February 2003, the Commission and declared the aid scheme implemented by Belgium in favour of coordination centres established in Belgium incompatible with the internal market. ² That decision was annulled by judgment of the Court of 22 June 2006 ³ ('the judgment in Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission') in that it did not provide for transitional measures with regard to certain of the coordination centres whose applications to benefit from the scheme in question were pending at the time of notification of that decision or whose approval expired at that time or shortly after notification of the decision. The applicant in the present case was one of the coordination centres referred to in the operative part of the judgment.

On 13 November 2007, the Commission adopted a new decision, Decision C(2007) 5416 final, by which it amended Decision 2003/757/EC by declaring the Belgian law adopted following the judgment in Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission incompatible with the internal market and seeking to permit extension until the end of 2010 of the transitional period during which the centres referred to in that judgment could benefit from the scheme. Decision C(2007) 5416 final also provided that the transitional period expires on 31 December 2005. This is the contested decision in the context of the present action.

In support of its action, the applicant raises three pleas in law.

As a principal plea, it submits that the contested decision infringes the principle of equal treatment and the obligation on the Commission to implement the measures contained in the judgment in Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission, in that it would not put an end to the unequal treatment referred to in that judgment since the transitional period granted to the applicant is much shorter than that granted to centres in a similar situation according to the indication given by the Court. It submits that it should have benefited from a transitional period expiring on 31 December 2010.

As an alternative plea, the applicant raises a plea alleging breach of the principles of legal certainty and of legitimate expectations in that the contested decision establishes a transitional period limited to 31 December 2005, which produces retroactive effects and results in the applicant being unable in good time to take the steps necessary to adapt to the change in the scheme before that date. On that basis, and in the alternative, the applicant claims that it should benefit from a transitional period expiring on 31 December 2009 at the earliest.

As a further alternative plea, the applicant raises a plea alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment in that the contested decision treats it differently from four coordination centres which were, at the time of the first decision, 2003/757/EC, in an identical situation but which obtained a renewal of their approval for an indefinite period. On the basis of that plea, and in the alternative, the applicant submits that it should have benefited from a transitional period expiring on 31 December 2006 at the earliest.

____________

¹ - Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission [2006] ECR I-5479.

² - OJ L 282, p. 25, corrected version OJ 2003 L 285, p. 52.

³ - See footnote 1.