14.9.2002 EN C 219/19 Official Journal of the European Communities
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE sels, represented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer, against Com-
mission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Yataganas
and C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for the annulment ofof 11 July 2002the decision of the Commission of 15 December 2000
appointing the applicant and classifying him in Grade A 5,in Case T-163/01: Juan Pedro Perez Escanilla v Com-step 1, with effect from 16 December 2000 — the Court of
mission of the European Communities (1)First Instance (Single Judge: M. Vilaras); J. Palacio González,
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 July
2002, in which it: (Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative
merits — Action for annulment)
1. annuls the decision of the Commission of 15 December 2000
(2002/C 219/47)classifying the applicant in Grade A 5, step 1, with effect from
16 December 2000.
(Language of the case: French)
2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
In Case T-163/01: Juan Pedro Perez Escanilla, an official of(1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
the European Communities (Agent: C. Berardis-Kayser) —application for annulment of the decision of the Commissionnot to promote the applicant to Grade A 4 in the 1999
promotions procedure — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-
Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-Action brought on 2 June 2002 by Pierre Tomarchiotrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 July 2002, inagainst Commission of the European Communitieswhich it:
1. Annuls the decision of the Commission not to promote the (Case T-173/02)
applicant to Grade A 4 in the 1999 promotions procedure.
(2002/C 219/49) 2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
(Language of the case: French) (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of theEuropean Communities on 2 June 2002 by Pierre Tomarchio,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE residing in Nancy (France), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
of 11 July 2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:in Case T-263/01: Petros Mavromichalis v Commission of
the European Communities (
1)
— annul the decision of the Commission of 27 July 2001
refusing to appoint the applicant to a higher grade in the(Officials — Prior complaint through official channels —category in accordance with Article 31(2) of the StaffImplied rejection — Classification in grade and step —Regulations;Statement of reasons)
— annul all other connected and/or subsequent decisions;(2002/C 219/48)
— in so far as necessary, annul the express decision which(Language of the case: Greek)the Commission adopted on 12 February 2002 rejecting
the complaint lodged by the applicant under Article 90(2)
of the Staff Regulations;
In Case T-263/01: Petros Mavromichalis, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus- — order the defendant to pay the costs.
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