Action brought on 30 August 2004 by The British Aggregates Association Limited, Healy Bros. Limited and DK Trotter & Sons Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-359/04)

(2004/C 284/45)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 August 2004 by The British Aggregates Association Limited, Lanark (United Kingdom) Healy Bros. Limited, Middleton, County Cork (Ireland) and DK Trotter & Sons, Manorhamilton, County Leitrim (Ireland) represented by C. Pouncey, Solicitor and L. Van Den Hende, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In 2002 the United Kingdom introduced the Aggregates Levy, an environmental tax on certain aggregates. By a decision of the same year the Commission concluded that the Aggregates Levy provisions did not constitute State Aid. Claiming that the competitive position of its members is affected by the Aggregates Levy, the applicant challenged that decision in the context of another case before the Court of First Instance (1).

On 5 January 2004 the United Kingdom notified the Commission of a new Aggregates Levy relief scheme for Northern Ireland. By the contested decision the Commission declared the new scheme compatible with the common market, rejecting the applicant's complaint against it without opening the formal investigation procedure.

In support of its application the applicant submits first of all that the scheme in question violates Articles 23 and 90 EC and could therefore not have been declared compatible with the common market. The applicant further claims that the Commission violated its own environmental guidelines (2), committing in this respect three manifest errors of assessment namely: Considering a 20 % proportion of the levy payable by firms eligible for the relief scheme as significant; mistakenly considering the new relief scheme had been decided when the Aggregate Levy was adopted and mistakenly finding that the levy has an appreciable positive impact in terms of environmental protection.

The applicant also submits that the Commission failed to state reasons in the contested decision, as required by Article 253 EC, violated its obligation to initiate a formal investigation procedure, and violated its procedural obligations in the preliminary investigation.

(1)  Case T-210/02, notified in OJ C 219, 14.9.2002, p. 23.

(2)  Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection OJ C 37, 3.2.2001 p. 3-15.