Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 22 January 2002 by adidas International B.V., Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank Nederland), DSM Finance B.V., DTG Finance B.V., Heineken N.V., ING Verzekeringen N.V., Koninklijke Ahold N.V., Landis Group International B.V., Unilever N.V. and Wolters Kluwer N.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-9/02)

    Language of the case: Dutch

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 January 2002 by adidas International B.V., established in Amsterdam, Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank Nederland), established in Amsterdam, DSM Finance B.V., established in Heerlen (Netherlands), DTG Finance B.V., established in The Hague, Heineken N.V., established in Amsterdam, ING Verzekeringen N.V., established in The Hague, Koninklijke Ahold N.V., established in Zaandam (Netherlands), Landis Group International B.V., established in Utrecht (Netherlands), Unilever N.V., established in Rotterdam (Netherlands), and Wolters Kluwer N.V., established in Amsterdam, all represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and S.B. Noë, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

(1)annul the Commission's decision of 11 July 2001 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC in respect of aid measure C 51/2001 (ex NN 48/2000) ( International financing activities;

(2)order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

By the contested decision, the Commission initiated an investigation procedure concerning new State aid in respect of the Netherlands fiscal legislation relating to international group financing activities ("the CFA regime"). In their application in the present proceedings, the applicants deny that any new State aid is involved.

The applicants plead infringement of Article 88 of the EC Treaty and of Regulation No 659/1999, inasmuch as the Commission should have initiated the procedure in relation to existing aid rather than that in respect of new aid. According to the applicants, it was not until after the CFA regime was introduced in 1997 that the Commission proceeded to regard such measures as constituting aid. As evidence of this, the applicants refer to the Commission's observations of 1984 and 1987 in relation to notification of a similar system by the Belgian Government, and also to the fact that the Belgian system is currently being investigated in accordance with the procedure for existing aid.

The applicants further claim that the contested decision violates the principle of equality, the general duty of care and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. Moreover, no sufficient statement of reasons has been given for the classification of the measure as new State aid.

____________