You are on page 1of 2

C 86/44 EN Official Journal of the European Union 8.4.

2006

— Annul Memorandum No 13687 of 13.12.2005 concerning Pleas in law and main arguments
payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Piedmont (No
CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 007); The pleas in law and the main arguments are the same as those
in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission (1).

— Annul Memorandum No 14013 of 19.12.2005 concerning


(1) OJ C 262 of 23.10.04, p. 55.
payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Tuscany Ob.2
(No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 001);

— Annul Memorandum No 14015 of 19.12.2005 concerning


NOP Local Enterprise Development 2000-2006 (No CCI
1999 IT 16 1DO 002) — Payments by the European
Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Eurallumina v
Commission which differ from the amount requested;
Commission

— Annul Memorandum No 14016 of 19.12.2005 concerning (Case T-62/06)


payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Campania (No
CCI 1999 IT 16 1PO 007); (2006/C 86/83)

Language of the case: English


— Annul Memorandum No 14082 of 20.12.2005 concerning
payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Ob.2 Lazio
2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 009);

Parties
— Annul Memorandum No 14108 of 20.12.2005 concerning
payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Lombardy (No Applicant: Eurallumina SpA (Portoscuso, Italy) [represented by:
CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 014); L. Martin Alegi, R. Denton, M. Garcia, Solicitors]

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities


— Annul Memorandum No 14133 of 21.12.2005 concerning
the certification and declaration of interim costs and
request for payment. SPD Veneto ob.2 2000-2006 (No CCI
2000 IT 16 2 DO 005);
Form of order sought

— Annul Memorandum No 14154 of 21.12.2005 concerning — Either:


payments by the European Commission which differ from
the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Puglia (No CCI
1999 IT 16 1PO 009); — Annul the entirety of the contested decision; or

— order that the present exemption authorised by Council


Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December
— Annul Memorandum No 00627 of 23.01.2006 concerning 2006 and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by
payments by the European Commission which differ from the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful
the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Puglia (No CCI State aid, or at least not be recovered; or
1999 IT 16 1PO 009);
— annul the entirety of the contested decision and order
that the present exemption authorised by Council Deci-
sion 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006
— Annul all connected and necessary measures;
and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by the
Italian State should not be considered as unlawful State
aid, or at least not be recovered;
— Order the Commission of the European Communities to
pay the costs. — Either:
8.4.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/45

— Annul Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the contested decision has therefore allegedly violated the applicant's rights in respect
insofar as they pertain to Eurallumina; or of the principle of legitimate expectations, the principles of
legal certainty, presumption of validity, ‘lex specialis’ and ‘effet
utile’, as well as the principle of good administration.
— order that the present exemption authorised by Council
Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December
2006 and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by Furthermore it is submitted that in deciding that the applicant's
the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful legitimate expectation came to an end on 2 February 2002, the
State aid, or at least not be recovered; or Commission failed to take the appropriate period over which
any investments were to be made and amortised relating to the
applicant's plant into account. The Commission has, therefore,
allegedly failed to state the reasons underlying the contested
— annul Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the contested decision decision.
insofar as they pertain to Eurallumina and order that
the present exemption authorised by Council Decision
2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006 and (1) 2001/224/EC: Council Decision of 12 March 2001 concerning
that any sums foregone or to be foregone by the Italian reduced rates of excise duty and exemptions from such duty on
State should not be considered as unlawful State aid, or certain mineral oils when used for specific purposes (OJ L 84, p. 23)
at least not be recovered;

— In the alternative, modify Articles 5 and 6 of the contested


decision insofar as they pertain to Euralluminia to the effect
that pursuant to the present exemption until 31 December
2006, or at least until 31 December 2003, any sums fore-
gone and to be foregone by the Italian State not be recov- Action brought on 16 February 2006 — Eyropaïki Dyna-
ered; and miki v EMCDDA

— order that the Commission pay all of the costs of the (Case T-63/06)
proceedings.

(2006/C 86/84)

Language of the case: English

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision of the Commission of 7 Parties


December 2005 addressed to the French Republic, Ireland and
the Italian Republic relating to a series of Council Decisions
authorising exemptions from excise duty on mineral oils used
Applicant: Eyropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepi-
for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region
koinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece)
and in Sardinia. In the contested decision, the Commission
[represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer]
found that the exemptions constituted State aid.

Defendant: The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and


Drug Addiction
In support of its application, the applicant submits that it had
the right to expect that the present exemption, proposed by the
Commission and unanimously approved by Council Decision
2001/224/EEC (1) until the end of December 2006 is a legally
valid Community act and that any act taken by the Italian State
and the applicant to implement and rely on these measures Form of order sought
would not lead to an unlawful result. According to the appli-
cant, it had the right to expect that the monies foregone by the
Italian State in accordance with the exemptions legally granted — Annul the decision of the European Monitoring Centre for
would not be recovered in any event. The Commission, by Drugs and Drug Addiction to evaluate the applicant's bid as
claiming that the application of the exemptions was a State aid not successful and award the contract to the successful
recoverable from 3 February 2002 until 31 December 2003, contractor,