Orders nº T-94/07 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-94/07

In Case T‑94/07,

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, acting as Agent,

defendant,

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4963 final of 24 October 2006 relating to a syndicated credit facility, and a loan, granted in the context of the construction by Framatone ANP 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 March 2007 the applicant, European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF), brought an action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4963 final of 24 October 2006 relating to a syndicated credit facility, and a loan, granted in the context of the construction by Framatone ANP of a nuclear power plant for Teollisuuden Voima Oy (‘the contested decision’). According to that decision, those loans did not constitute State aid.

2 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 Ms Fouquet, the lawyer representing the applicant in the present case and the person who signed the application, as director of EREF.

3 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.

4 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 national law.

5 On 13 February 2009 the applicant complied with the Court’s request and lodged a clean copy of the minutes of 29 June 2004 at the Registry of the Court, and confirmed that that document had...