Orders nº T-40/08 of Court of First Instance of the European Communities, November 19, 2009

• Resolution Date: November 19, 2009
• Issuing Organization: Court of First Instance of the European Communities
• Decision Number: T-40/08

In Case T‑40/08,

European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF), established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by D. Fouquet, lawyer,

applicant,

v

Commission of the European Communities, represented by N. Khan and B. Martenczuk, acting as Agents,

defendant,

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4323 final of 25 September 2007 concerning the measure C 45/2006 implemented by France in the context of the construction by Areva NP of a nuclear power plant for Teollisuuden Voima Oy,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Sixth Chamber),

composed of A.W.H. Meij (Rapporteur), President, V. Vadapalas and L. Truchot, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

Procedure

1 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 26 January 2008 the applicant, European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF), brought an action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4323 final of 25 September 2007 concerning measure C 45/2006 implemented by France in the context of the construction by Areva NP of a nuclear power plant for Teollisuuden Voima Oy (‘the contested decision’). According to that decision, that measure did not constitute State aid.

2 By separate document, lodged at the Registry of the Court on 15 May 2008, the Commission of the European Communities raised an objection to admissibility pursuant to Article 114(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. The Commission submitted, inter alia, that the application did not comply with Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, inasmuch as it has been signed by a lawyer who is a director of EREF.

3 By separate documents, lodged at the Registry of the Court on 3, 9 and 16 June 2008 respectively, the French Republic and the Republic of Finland applied for leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Commission, and Greenpeace France and Greenpeace Nordic applied for leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the applicant.

4 The applicant submitted its observations on the objection to admissibility on 9 July 2008.

5 By letter from the Registry of 20 November 2008, the Court requested the applicant to produce, in the context of a measure of organisation of procedure, an official copy of the act appointing D. Fouquet, the lawyer representing the applicant in the present case and the person who signed the application, as director of EREF.

6 On 15 December 2008 the applicant complied with the Court’s request and lodged a copy of the minutes of the EREF Board meeting of 29 June 2004 (‘the minutes of 29 June 2004’) at the Registry of the Court. However, the applicant pointed out that that copy had not been officially registered in accordance with national law. Furthermore, that copy was, in part, crossed out.

7 By letter from the Registry of 16 January 2009, the Court requested the applicant to produce, in the context of an additional measure of organisation of procedure, a clean copy of the minutes of 29 June 2004, and to confirm that the act appointing Ms Fouquet as director of EREF had not been officially registered in accordance with the applicable...