# C_2005106EN.01001601.xml

| 30.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/16

---

Appeal brought on 18 February 2005 (by fax/email on 16 February 2005) by Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 1 December 2004 in Case T-27/02 Kronofrance S.A. v Commission of the European Communities, supported by Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-80/05 P)

(2005/C 106/31)

Language of the case: German

An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 1 December 2004 in Case T-27/02 Kronofrance S.A. v Commission of the European Communities, supported by Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February 2005 (by fax/email 16 February 2005) by Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH, represented by Dr Hans-Jörg Niemeyer, Rechtsanwalt, Hengeler Mueller, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| 1. | set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 1 December 2004 in Case T-27/02 (1) and dismiss the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 1 December 2004 in Case T-27/02 (1) and dismiss the application;

1

| 2. | in the alternative, set aside the contested judgment and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance; |
| --- | --- |

2.

in the alternative, set aside the contested judgment and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

| 3. | order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested judgment of the Court of First Instance should be set aside on the following grounds:

| — | The Court of First Instance infringed Article 87(3) EC, since it interpreted incorrectly the multisectoral regional aid framework for large investment projects, and thereby disregarded the discretion enjoyed by the Commission in drawing up and applying that Community framework. Moreover, the Court of First Instance's economic assessment, namely that aid in a shrinking market is known to create substantial risks of distortions of competition even if there is no overcapacity in the sector concerned, is wrong. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Court of First Instance infringed Article 87(3) EC, since it interpreted incorrectly the multisectoral regional aid framework for large investment projects, and thereby disregarded the discretion enjoyed by the Commission in drawing up and applying that Community framework. Moreover, the Court of First Instance's economic assessment, namely that aid in a shrinking market is known to create substantial risks of distortions of competition even if there is no overcapacity in the sector concerned, is wrong.

| — | The Court of First Instance found, as a result of an incorrect interpretation of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, that the applicant at first instance had locus standi and the application was therefore admissible. The applicant is not directly and individually concerned by the contested aid, since there is no relationship of competition between it and the appellants. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Court of First Instance found, as a result of an incorrect interpretation of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, that the applicant at first instance had locus standi and the application was therefore admissible. The applicant is not directly and individually concerned by the contested aid, since there is no relationship of competition between it and the appellants.

| — | The Court of First Instance infringed Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure. It should have clarified the facts further by means of measure of organisation of procedure, in order to ascertain the facts which were said to justify the applicant's locus standi. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Court of First Instance infringed Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure. It should have clarified the facts further by means of measure of organisation of procedure, in order to ascertain the facts which were said to justify the applicant's locus standi.

| — | The Court of First Instance infringed the second paragraph of Article 230 EC, since in its judgment it went beyond the complaints raised in the application. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Court of First Instance infringed the second paragraph of Article 230 EC, since in its judgment it went beyond the complaints raised in the application.

---

(1)  OJ No C 31 of 5.2.2005.

1

---