C 246/42 EN 28.8.1999 Official Journal of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should: represented by Piero A. M. Ferrari, Aurelio Pappalardo and Pier
Francesco Meneghini, of the Roma, Trapani and Milan Bars,with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of declare that
Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert Premier.
1. the applicant is entitled to a survivor’s pension based
on 35 % of a Grade A 6/8 salary with annual adjust-The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:ments,
— annul Commission Decision C (1999) 532 of 4 March 2. the applicant is not bound to repay the amount of
1999 or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the grant DM 40 518 .61 pursuant to the Commission’s decision
to be repaid to the Commission to such extent as may be of 21 September 1998,
decided in the course of the proceedings;
and order the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, who was divorced from her husband, a
Community official who died in 1973, and was entitled to beThe applicant contests Commission Decision C (1999) 532 ofmaintained by him from that time, receives a widow’s4 March 1999, which reduces the contribution made to onepension from the Commission. The applicant claims that theof its subsidiaries by the Commission under CommissionCommission has already committed numerous administrativeDecision C (93) 3395 of 26 November 1992 concerning granterrors in her case on previous occasions.of the EAGGF, Guidance Section, contribution under Council
Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 (
1), in connection with ProjectThe Commission informed her by letter of 20 August 1998No 92.ES.06.031 entitled ‘Demonstrative project for thethat her monthly pension payment had been incorrect sincemultiple optimisation of Vetiver ( Vetiveria Zizanioides ) A in theFebruary 1994 and did not correspond to the decision in theMediterranean area’.relevant amendment notice, pursuant to which she is entitled
to a survivor’s pension of 26.56498 %, not 35 %, of a Grade
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in A 6/8 salary. She was therefore informed that this oversight
Case T-141/99 Vela s.r.l. v Commission. would be corrected in the statement for September 1998 and
that the situation with regard to the overpaid sums would be
regularized.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988
laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) NoThe applicant claims that the Commission misapplied the2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (OJ L 337 ofprovisions cited by her of Article 41 of Annex VIII to the Staff24.12.1994, p. 11).Regulations and Article 85 of the Staff Regulations. As was
correctly pointed out in the notice of complaint, the amountof a pension may be reassessed in the event of an error or
omission in the calculation thereof. In exercising that discre-tion, it is imperative that the Commission weigh up its interestsagainst those of the person concerned, which it did not do.Furthermore, a lawful administrative act conferring a benefitmay not be annulled and even an unlawful administrative act
may only be annulled within a reasonable time.
Action brought on 21 June 1999 by Tecnagrind s.l. —
Tecnologias Agrarias e Industriales — against Commission
of the European Communities
(Case T-151/99)
Action brought on 21 June 1999 by Tecnagrind s.l. against (1999/C 246/84)
Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-150/99) (Language of the case: Italian)
(1999/C 246/83)An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of theEuropean Communities on 21 June 1999 by Tecnagrind s.l.(Language of the case: Italian)— Tecnologias agrarias e industralIes — represented by
Piero A. M. Ferrari, Aurelio Pappalardo and Pier FrancescoMeneghini, of the Roma, Trapani and Milan Bars, with an An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain
Lorang, 51 Rue Albert Premier. European Communities on 21 June l 999 by Tecnagrind s.l.,
28.8.1999 EN C 246/43 Official Journal of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should: Pleas in law and main arguments
— annul Commission Decision C (1999) 533 of 4 March
This is an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision 1999 or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the grant
(C(1999)41 final) of 3 February 1999 on State aid awarded by to be repaid to the Commission to such extent as may be
the Spanish Government to the applicant company. In that decided in the course of the proceedings;
decision, the Commission declared that the Spanish authorities
had granted to Hijos de Andrés Molina S.A. — a producer of — order the Commission to pay the costs.meat, dairy products and animal feed, now in liquidation —
State aid incompatible with the EC Treaty, and that thatamount should be repaid.Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant contests Commission Decision C (1999) 533 of In support of its claims, the applicant alleges the following
4 March 1999, which reduces the contribution made to one grounds for annulment:
of its subsidiaries by the Commission under Commission
Decision C (96) 2235 of 13 September 1996 concerning grant— infringement of Articles 87 and 88(3) of the EC Treaty [exof the EAGGF, Guidance Section, contribution under CouncilArticles 92 and 93(3)], in so far as the aid granted prior toRegulation (EEC) No 4256/88 (
1), in connection with Project1995 must be regarded as compatible with the commonNo 95.ES.06.005 entitled ‘Demonstrative project for themarket;processing of castor-oil plants ( Ricinus Communis ) in agricul-
tural undertakings for the extraction of natural aromatic
— manifest error in the findings of fact and infringement of essences’.
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty in that the steps taken by
the public creditors in the legal proceedings for suspensionThe pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those inof payments cannot be considered to constitute State aidCase T-141/99 Vela s.r.l. v Commission.because they do not meet the requirement of specificity
nor do they comply with the rules of Spanish competition
law;(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988
laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No
2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (OJ L 337 of — infringement of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty in that the24.12.1994, p. 11).Commission considered the increase in capital by way of
credit set-off on the part of the applicant to constituteState aid;
— manifest error in the findings of fact and infringement of
Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty and of the Community
rules applicable in the area of State aid for the restructuringand rescue of companies, in that the rescue aid granted toAction brought on 24 June 1999 by Hijos de Andrésthe applicant between May and December 1995 was notMolina S.A. (in liquidation) against the Commission of theconsidered to be compatible with the common market.European Communities
(Case T-152/99) The applicant company also alleges that the contested decision
fails to take into account that the restructuring plan drawn upby it fulfils the requirements of compatibility with the common(1999/C 246/85)market since that plan clearly reduced the applicant’s pro-
duction capacity, re-established its viability and succeeded in
protecting the interests of third parties in the procedure which(Language of the case: Spanish )led to its reprivatisation.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Further, the applicant is also of the view that the decision fails ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
to take into account the principle that reasons must be given European Communities on 24 June 1999 by Hijos de Andrés
for measures adopted. In particular, it claims in that regard Molina S.A., whose registered office is in Seville, Spain,
that the decision simply precludes the possible application of represented by Luis Manuel Olivencia Brugger and José Luis
Article 87(3)(a) without complying with the corresponding Ballester Garcı ´a-Izquierdo, with an address for service in
obligations to provide reasons which arise by virtue of the Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Arendt, 7 Val Ste. Croix,
discretion enjoyed. B.P. 522.
The applicant claims that the Court should:Finally, the applicant company challenges whether the require-
ment that intra-Community trade be affected applies in this— annul the Commission’s decision of 3 February 1999 on case.the State aid granted by the Spanish Government to Hijos
de Andrés Molina S.A.;
— order that the Commission pay the costs.