Case T-92/01: Action brought on 27 April 2001 by Marie-Claude Girardot against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-06-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), competition (EU), equal treatment, staff assessment

30.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 186/15

— alternatively, annul Article 1 of the decision of 19 July
2000,
inasmuch as it establishes that the fixed-price
guarantees by the Province of Burgenland for the pro-
vision of process utilities and the provision of aid of an
unknown amount in the form of the creation of com-
pany-specific infrastructure do not constitute aid within
the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty;

— order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against Commission Decision
2001/102/EC of 19 July 2000 on State aid granted by Austria
to Lenzing Lyocell GmbH & Co KG (hereinafter ‘LLG’), notified
under document number C(2000) 2454) (1). That aid was
linked to a project for the construction of a new plant for the
production of Lyocell, a new type of man-made staple fibre
produced from natural cellulose in wood pulp.

In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:

— an error of law, inasmuch as no consideration has been
given to the sectorial effects of the aid granted to LLG. It
is asserted in that regard that, in the contested decision,
the Commission attached greater importance to the
regional aspect of the aid than to the sectorial aspect, as
regards both the rules governing compatibility and the
procedural rules. In particular, the applicant is unable to
see how the defendant, knowing that the fibres market is
suffering from problems of overcapacity, could have
authorised a State aid scheme in favour of LLG allowing
new production capacity to be established in the Burgen-
land region. The applicant also considers that the Com-
mission has failed to take into account the existence of
specific measures applicable to the man-made fibres
sector;

— a manifest error of assessment of the innovative character
of the product. The applicant observes that one of the
criteria used by the Commission in order to authorise
the contested measures is the innovative
certain of
character of the product and of the production process.
In its view, Lyocell is not innovative, either as a product
or as a production process. Consequently, there do not
exist two distinct product markets limiting the effects on
competition;

— disregard of the obligation to provide a statement of
reasons, inasmuch as no justification has been given for
the finding that the aid investment will have only a
limited effect on competition;

— manifest error in the calculation of

the overall aid
intensity. The applicant points out in that connection
that the calculation leaves out of account environmental
aid and other eligible costs, as well as existing aid. The
defendant should have examined not only whether the
threshold fixed by the scheme was observed but also
whether the aid, despite pursuing a different objective,
covers jointly eligible costs as provided for in the
directives on State aid designed to achieve regional
objectives.

Lastly, the applicant argues that the application of the excep-
tions laid down in Article 87(3) of the EC Treaty is unlawful,
and that the procedural rules provided for in Article 88(3) of
the Treaty have been infringed.

(1) OJ L 38 of 8.2.01, p. 33.

Action brought on 27 April 2001 by Marie-Claude Girar-
dot against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-92/01)

(2001/C 186/23)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 April 2001 by Marie-Claude
Girardot, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis
and Véronique Peere, avocats, having an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Selection Committee in Compe-
tition COM/R/A/01/1999 to award the applicant a mark
insufficient for her to be included on the reserve list;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case challenges her non-inclusion
on the reserve list for Competition COM/R/A/01/1999.

C 186/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.6.2001

In support of her claim the applicant alleges:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of the selection notice, of essential pro-
cedural requirements, and of the rules governing the
operation of selection boards (principle of independence);

— The existence, in casu, of a manifest error of assessment;

— Breach of the obligation to provide reasons;

— Infringement of the principle of transparency;

— Infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

Action brought on 27 April 2001 by Astrid Hirsch against
the European Central Bank.

(Case T-94/01)

(2001/C 186/24)

(Language of the case: English)

The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the
ECB of 25 September 2000 refusing her the benefit of an
educational allowance, and the decisions of
the ECB of
21 December 2000, rejecting the appellant’s administrative
review, and of 20 February 2000, rejecting the appellant’s
grievance.

The educational allowance was refused to the applicant on the
basis of Article 19 of the Conditions of Employment of the
staff of the ECB. According to that article, members of the staff
of the ECB who are entitled to an expatriation allowance of
16 % are also entitled to an educational allowance for each
dependent child until the establishment of a European school
in the Frankfurt area. The applicant has the German nationality
and is therefore not entitled to an expatriation allowance.
According to the ECB she is for this reason also not entitled to
an educational allowance for her oldest child.

The applicant claims:

— that this difference in treatment between staff members
entitled to an expatriation allowance and those who are
not entitled to an expatriation allowance, is unjustified
and therefore constitutes a breach of the principle of non-
discrimination.

— that the administration has failed in its obligation of
due care since it has not taken into consideration the
applicant’s situation.

An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 27 April 2001 by Astrid Hirsch, resident in Germany,
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of
DeBacker Association, Brussels (Belgium).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Central Bank of
25 September 2000 refusing the applicant the benefit of
the education allowance and therefore the reimbursement
of the tuition fees that the applicant has to pay for
the attendance of her son at the Internationale Schule
Frankfurt and, if necessary, annul the decisions of the
European Central Bank of 21 December 2000 rejecting
the applicant’s administrative review and of 20 February
2000 rejecting the applicant’s grievance;

— order the ECB to reimburse the tuition fees amounting to
EUR 11 370,00 for the school year 2000-2001 and of
future tuition fees for the future school years, with an
interest of 8 % per year from 1 of September of each year
until the due payment, and order the ECB to reimburse
the installation fees amounting to EUR 5 922 with an
interest of 8 % per year from 1 of September 2001;

Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Gérard Goget, Pierre
Huge and Emmanuel Gabolde v Court of Auditors of the
European Communities

(Case T-95/01)

(2001/C 186/25)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
on 4 May 2001 by Gérard Goget, residing in Hettange-Grande,
France, Pierre Huge, residing in Bonnevoie, Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg, and Emmanuel Gabolde, residing in Metz,
France, represented by the lawyer André Soulier, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:

— Annul the decision of 22 February 2001 with all the

consequences in law;

— order the ECB to pay the costs.

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.