C 219/20 EN 14.9.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments group said to comprise Erba Lautex GmbH in liquidation
and Neue Erba Lautex GmbH aid amounting in total to
EUR 7,834 million.
The applicant objects to the Commission’s decision to refuse
to appoint him to the higher grade in the category in
accordance with Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations.
The applicant submits that the Commission’s finding that
repayment of the capital increase constituted aid was incorrect
and thus contravened Article 87(1) EC. The obligation on the In support of his arguments, the applicant claims that the
State-owned vendor under the contractual clause did not Commission relied on erroneous information and on contra-
amount to aid. Moreover, the Commission did not substantiate dictory arguments. By refusing to reclassify the applicant
its supposition as to a 100 % level of aid intensity in connection despite the large number of diplomas he holds and the
with a capital increase in favour of Erba Lautex GmbH and experience he possesses, the Commission has committed a
thus contravened Article 253 EC. manifest error of assessment. Furthermore, the Commission
did not give valid reasons for its decision, thus infringingArticle 25(2) of the Staff Regulations.
The applicant further submits that there is no legal basis for
the obligation on Erba Lautex GmbH in respect of repayment
of rescue and restructuring aid in favour of Neue Erba Lautex
GmbH. The Commission decision is based on the erroneous
finding that Neue Erba Lautex GmbH was not a successor
undertaking under the terms of the exception provided for in
footnote 10 of the Guidelines (1).Action brought on 17 June 2002 by Rüdiger Wienberg
(Rechtsanwalt), acting as liquidator in the liquidation of
Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und Veredlung against the
Commission of the European CommunitiesThe applicant maintains that the Commission’s finding that
Erba Lautex GmbH and Neue Erba Lautex GmbH were to bedeemed to constitute a group was erroneous since Neue Erba (Case T-187/02)
Lautex GmbH is controlled not by Erba Lautex GmbH but by
the liquidator. The findings that no aid has hitherto been(2002/C 219/50)claimed back from Erba Lautex GmbH and that the Com-
mission decision of 20 July 1999 has thus not been implement-
ed are also erroneous. In consequence of the erroneous(Language of the Case: German)assumptions made by the Commission the contested decision
was already unlawful and liable to be set aside for breach ofArticle 87(3)(c) EC in conjunction with the Guidelines.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 17 June
2002 by Rüdiger Wienberg (Rechtsanwalt), acting as liquidatorThe applicant submits, in the alternative, that the Commissionin the liquidation of Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und Vered-was incorrect in its finding that the applicant and Erba Lautexlung, Dresden, (Germany), represented by Professor U. Ehricke,GmbH constituted a unit or group of undertakings and thatwith an address for service in Luxembourg.therefore the ability to approve rescue and restructuring aid
could only be assessed in favour of the group, that the
Deggendorf doctrine was to be applied and the aid was to
The applicant claims that the Court should:be claimed back from both members of the group. The
Commission’s decision is said to be based on the erroneous
— Annul the Commission Decision (C(2002)944 fin) of finding that the applicant’s case did not constitute a residual
12 March 2002 concerning State aid by the Federal arrangement under the terms of the exception provided for in
Republic in favour of Neue Erba Lautex Gmbh and Erba footnote 10 of the Guidelines. By not applying that exceptional
Lautex GmbH in liquidation; provision the Commission infringed the principle of equal
treatment and provided no objective reason for the unequal
treatment.— Order the defendant to pay the costs.
(1) Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuringPleas in law and main arguments firms in difficulty (OJ 1999 C 288, p. 2).
In the contested decision the Commission imposed on the
Federal Republic of Germany the obligation to reclaim from a