Action brought on 14 October 2010 - Iberdrola v Commission
(Case T-486/10)
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Iberdrola, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado and E. Barbier de la Serre, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
Annul the Decision;
order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
This action is brought against the same decision as that challenged in Case T-484/10 Gas Natural Fenosa SDG v Commission and Case T-490/10 Endesa v Commission.
In the applicant's submission, the Commission made a series of errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in holding, following a preliminary examination in accordance with Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999,
1 that the public service compensation notified by the Kingdom of Spain was justified pursuant to the EU rules on State aids. The applicant puts forward five pleas in support of its application for annulment.
First, the applicant complains that the Commission failed to initiate the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 4(4) of the Regulation, although there were serious doubts as to the compatibility of the notified aid with the internal market. Accordingly, the applicant claims that the Commission clearly infringed Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
By its second plea, which is in two parts, the applicant submits, in the first part, that the Commission made errors of law and of assessment in holding that the measure notified by the Kingdom of Spain reflects the need to pay compensation in respect of the cost of supplying a service of general economic interest, justified on grounds of security of supply, although there are no problems of security of supply and it is not anticipated that any will arise in the medium term. In the second part of the plea, the applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding the measure notified by the Kingdom of Spain to be compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU and the Third Electricity Directive [2009/72/EC].
By its third plea, the applicant argues that the State aid authorised by the Commission breaches the temporal and material limits laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002
2 and in the Proposal for a Council Regulation concerning State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines.
By its fourth plea, the applicant maintains that the Commission has acted in breach of the principle of sound administration, which requires it to examine with due care and attention and in an impartial manner all relevant aspects of the matter, since it failed to deem it appropriate to seek all the opinions necessary for it to be fully informed about all data relevant to the case before adopting its decision and, instead, approved the notified measure at the preliminary stage.
By its fifth plea, which is in three parts, the applicant submits that the Commission has infringed the principle established by the case-law which prevents the Commission from declaring compatible with the internal market State aid that infringes other provisions of the Treaty: in particular, the Commission disregarded the fact that the measure infringes the rules which give effect to the principle of free movement of goods, the objectives pursued by the directives concerning the internal market for electricity and the European Union's objectives concerning sustainability.
____________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 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002 on State aid to the coal industry (OJ 2002 L 205, p. 1).