Case T-88/01: Action brought on 24 April 2001 by Sniace, S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-06-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Austria, European Commission, State aid, action for annulment (EU), man-made fibre, regional aid

C 186/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.6.2001

— Registration of the mark in
question would accord with
the
the other
decision-making practice fol-
lowed by
the Boards of
Appeal.

aspects of

— Infringement,

alternatively
misinterpretation,
of
Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regu-
lation No 40/94.

Pleas in law and principal arguments

in
The applicant pleads, with reference to the judgment
Antillean Rice Mills, that safeguard measures must be of a
temporary nature. It maintains that no assessment whatever
has been carried out, let alone any examination of the need for
an extension.

For the rest, the pleas in law and main arguments are analogous
to those in Cases T-94/00 and T-332/00.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

(1) What is meant is Commission Regulation (EC) No 396/2001 of
27 February 2001 providing for the continued application of
safeguard measures for imports from the overseas countries and
territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of
origin for the period 1 March to 30 June 2001 (OJ L 58 of
28.2.2001, p. 13).

Action brought on 13 April 2001 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-87/01)

(2001/C 186/21)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 April 2001 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV, established at Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by
G. van der Wal, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Regulation No 376/2001 (1);

— rule that the Community is liable for the damage suffered
by the applicant as a result of the fact that, since 1 March
2001, the importation of the products referred to in
Regulation No 376/2001 has been prevented or restricted
in consequence of that regulation, and order that the
parties should seek to reach agreement on the extent of
the damage suffered by the applicant, and that, if no such
agreement is reached, the proceedings are to be resumed
within a time-limit to be specified by the Court, with a
view to determining the quantum of the damage, and
further order the Community to pay the damages pro-
visionally quantified and yet to be quantified, alternatively
to pay such compensation as the Court may deem fair
and equitable, together with interest thereon at the rate
of 8 % per annum from the date of the application until
payment in full;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Action brought on 24 April 2001 by Sniace, S.A. against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-88/01)

(2001/C 186/22)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 April 2001 by Sniace, S.A.,
established in Madrid, represented by José Luis Baro´ Fuentes,
Miguel Angel Go´ mez de Lian˜ o y Botella and Fernando
Rodrı´guez Carretero, abogados.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 1 of the decision of 19 July 2000, inasmuch
as it establishes that the provision of guarantees amount-
ing to EUR 35,80 million does not constitute State aid
within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty;

— annul Article 2 of the decision, inasmuch as it establishes
that the aid granted by Austria to LLG through the
provision of a guarantee amounting to EUR 14,5 million
by WiBAG complies with the guarantee guidelines
approved by the Commission under number No 542/95;

— annul Article 3 of the decision, inasmuch as it establishes
that the individual aid which Austria has granted in the
form of aid amounting to EUR 0,4 million for land
acquisition and in the form of equity capital amounting
to EUR 21,8 million is compatible with the common
market;

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.