Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

28.8.

2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/29

Action brought on 9 June 2004 by the United Kingdom of The applicant finally submits that the Commission has
Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the infringed the applicant's right to be heard in that it did not
Commission of the European Communities raise certain matters upon which it has sought to base its deci-
sion during the course of the procedure under Article 88(2) EC.

(Case T-215/04)
(1) State aid C 66/2002 — Gibraltar government corporation tax
reform.
(2004/C 217/51)

(Language of the case: English)

Action brought on 9 June 2004 by European Environ-


mental Bureau and Stichting Natuur en Millieu against the
Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 June 2004 by the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by (Case T-236/04)
M. Bethell, agent, assisted by D. Anderson QC and H. Davies,
Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
(2004/C 217/52)

The applicant claims that the Court should:


(Language of the case: English)

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order the Commission to pay the applicants costs.


An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 June 2004 by European Environ-
Pleas in law and main arguments: mental Bureau, Brussels, Belguim and Stichting Natuur en
Millieu, Utrecht, The Netherlands, represented by Mr P. van den
The applicant contests the Commission decision of 30 March Biesen and Mr B. Arentz, lawyers.
2004 on the aid scheme which the United Kingdom is planning
to implement with regard to the Government of Gibraltar
Corporation Tax Reform (1). In the decision, the Commission The applicant claims that the Court should:
finds that the proposed tax reform constitutes state aid incom-
patible with the common market.
— Partially annul Commission Decision 2004/248/EC (1)
insofar as it concerns article 2 para 3 and article 3 sub b;
In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
Commission's conclusions as to regional selectivity are vitiated
by material errors of fact and are wrong in law. — Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
ings;

According to the applicant, Gibraltar, which is a colony whose


self-government the United Kingdom is obliged to develop Pleas in law and main arguments:
under the UN Charter, does not form part of the United
Kingdom as a matter of domestic, international and Com-
munity law. Furthermore, the applicant states that Gibraltar is By the contested decision the Commission decided not to
distinct from the United Kingdom and that it receives no amended Annex I to Directive 91/414 (2) so as to include ‘Atra-
subsidy or financing from the United Kingdom. The applicant zine’ among the active substances listed there. Article 4 of
also claims that the tax systems of the United Kingdom and of Directive 91/414 states that only plant protection products
Gibraltar are entirely separate and unconnected and that the containing substances listed in Annex I may be authorised by
reform proposals do not constitute a tax reduction to the tax Member States. By refusing to include Atrazine in Annex I the
system applicable in the United Kingdom. The Commission's Commission decided not to allow further use of plant protec-
approach also infringes, according to the applicant, the prin- tion products containing this substance.
ciple of equal treatment in that measures adopted by a symme-
trically devolved region are not to be treated as state aid
whereas the same measures adopted by a asymmetrically The applicants do not challenge this aspect of the decision but
devolved region are. rather certain transitional provisions which allow until 30 June
2007 and subject to conditions aimed at minimising risk
certain limited uses of products containing Atrazine. In the
The applicant contends that the Commission's conclusions with preamble to its decision the Commission justified these transi-
respect to material selectivity are wrong in law and are insuffi- tional measures through the current absence of efficient alter-
ciently reasoned. natives and the need to allow time for their development.