14.9.2002

EN

C 219/23

Official Journal of the European Communities

(Case T-210/02)

Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to state reasons in the contested Decision, as required by Article 253 EC Treaty. According to the applicant, the Commission also violated its obligation to initiate a formal investigation procedure, where the preliminary investigation was carried out in insufficient depth to resolve the serious difficulties regarding the compatibility of the measure with the State Aid provisions. The applicant also submits that the Commission violated its procedural obligations in the preliminary investigation. In this respect, the applicant claims that the Commission did not conduct a diligent and impartial examination of the applicant’s complaint and did not provide the applicant with an adequate explanation for rejecting its arguments.

(2002/C 219/54)

(Language of the case: English)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Commission Decision C(2002) 1478fin of 24 April 2002 ‘State Aid N 863/01- United Kingdom/Aggregates Levy’ save as regards the exemption for Northern Ireland;

—order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in the present proceedings.

Action brought on 15 July 2002 by Tideland Signal Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-211/02)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an association representing smaller and independent quarrying companies in the United Kingdom. The competitive position of its members is affected by the Aggregates Levy, an environmental tax raised by the United Kingdom on certain aggregates. The objective of the Levy is to reflect the environmental impacts of aggregate quarrying more fully in the price of aggregates. These environmental costs include noise, dust, damage to biodiversity and visual amenity. A further objective of the Levy is the encouragement of the use of recycled or alternative material.

(Language of the case: English)

In the contested Decision, the Commission declared the Levy to be compatible with the Common Market.

According to the applicant, the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in deciding that the distinction made between taxable and non-taxable situations is justified by the logic and nature of the tax system. The applicant claims, however, that the objectives of the Levy cannot explain the different treatment of similar situations. The applicant also stated that the United Kingdom authorities admitted that the Commission did not conduct a diligent and impartial examination of the applicant’s complaint and did not provide the applicant with an adequate explanation for rejecting its arguments.