Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

2.8.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/37

Pleas in law and main arguments The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Secretary-General's decision of 13 June 2002


The applicants in the present case seek the annulment of the which confirms, without amendment, the applicant's staff
Commission's Decision approving the grant by the United report for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;
Kingdom of State aid, in the form of ‘rescue aid’, to British
Energy plc (BE), a generator of electricity in the United — annul the Commission's decision of 13 January 2003
Kingdom. The main source of its electricity is nuclear power. rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
13 September 2002;
The applicants contend that the contested Decision is unlawful — order the defendant to pay damages of EUR 10 000;
in as much as it failed adequately or properly to assess
whether the aid was warranted by serious social difficulties, — order the defendant to pay the full costs of the proceed-
and whether the amount of aid was restricted to the minimum ings.
necessary, both in accordane with point 23(e) of the Guidelines
on State aid for Rescuing and Restructureting firms in diffi-
culty (1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
In particular, the applicants submit that the defendant institu- The applicant is an official in DG II of the European Commis-
tion wrongly concluded that, in the absence of the aid in sion. With a delay of almost two years, the appellant was the
question, BE would be insolvent and would most certainly subject of a staff report for the period 1997 to 1999. That
have to cease operations, without considering whether puttig report was confirmed by the appeal assessor.
BE into administration would have been an appropriate rescue
option entailing the grant of less aid, nor the possibility
involving the closure of only one or several of its plants as The applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest
opposed to all of them. error of assessment and misused its powers in drawing up that
report. In support of his claims, the applicant also maintains
that the Commission failed to comply with Article 43 of the
Moreover, the applicants dissagree with the Commision's Staff Regulations, thus giving rise to procedural defects. Finally,
conclusion that nuclear plants cannot be mothballed and that the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state
BE's plants could not be closed without giving rise to serious reasons.
concerns over nuclear safety.

Finally, the applicants submit that the Commission have


wrongly concluded that the closure of BE's plants led to a
loss of 20 % of UK electricity generating capacity such as to
threaten security of supply and, in any event, failed to consider Action brought on 4 May 2003 by Scania AB against the
the reduced impact on generating capacity of closing only one Commission of the European Communities
or several of BE's plants.
(Case T-163/03)
(1) OJ 1999 No C 288, p. 2.
(2003/C 184/85)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-


nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 May 2003 by Scania AB, Söder-
Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Michael Cwik against
tälje, Sweden, represented by Mr S. Pappas, lawyer.
the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Case T-157/03)
— annul the Decision of 4 Mars 2003 of the Merger Task
Force of the European Commission.
(2003/C 184/84)
— annul the Decision of 16 April 2003 of the Merger Task
Force of the European Commission.
(Language of the case: French)
— annul the Decision of 24 April 2003 of the Merger Task
Force of the European Commission.
An action against the Commission of the European Commu- — annul the refusal of the Commission to review the
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the arrangement of the divestiture of the shareholding of
European Communities on 30 April 2003 by Michael Cwik, Volvo in Scania and enforce an immediate divestiture as
residing at Tervuren, Belgium, represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, requested during the meeting of the 20th February 2003
with an address for service in Luxembourg. and put on in the letter of the 21st February 2003.