Case T-111/01: Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-08-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, State aid, action for annulment (EU), aid for restructuring, control of State aid

C 227/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.8.2001

the Commission,

in its assessment of

In support of its claim, the applicant pleads infringement of
Article 87(1) and (3)(c) of the EC Treaty. According to the
the aid
applicant,
awarded, did not take account of the specific, more expensive
production methods of the applicant required by the Nether-
lands authorities whereby the smell is reduced. According to
the applicant, this method of production is not obligatory in
the other Member States, as a result of which production is
cheaper. Furthermore, the applicant pleads infringement of
the Commission Decision of 6 July 1989 approving the
Bijdrageregeling
and of
Article 88 of the EC Treaty. Finally, the applicant alleges
infringement of the duty to state reasons, the principle of
legitimate expectations and the right to a fair hearing.

Proefprojecten Mestverwerking

Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Védial S.A. against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Case T-110/01)

(2001/C 227/50)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 May 2001 by Védial S.A.,
established at Ludres (France), represented by Thierry van Innis
and Geert Glas, avocats, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision adopted on 9 March 2001 in pro-

cedure R-127/2000-1;

— order the Office to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

France Distribution

The Community trade
mark concerned:

the semi-figurative mark ‘Hubert’
— application No 108530

Goods or service con-
cerned:

various food products including
milk, other dairy products, vin-
together with
egar and sauces,
hotel
services
catering
and
(Classes 29, 30 and 42)

Trade marks objected to
in the opposition pro-
cedure:

Verbal mark ‘Saint-Hubert 41’ —
Decision of 9 March 2001 in
procedure R-127/2000-1

Proprietor of the marks
objected to:

the applicant

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

rejection of the applicant’s oppo-
sition to the application for regis-
tration of the mark ‘Hubert’

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

rejection of the appeal lodged by
the applicant

Grounds of claim:

violation of the notion of ‘likeli-
hood of confusion’ referred to in
Article 8(1)(b) of the Community
Trade Mark Regulation (1)

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

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

Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Saxonia Edelmetalle
GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-111/01)

(2001/C 227/51)

(Language of the Case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 May 2001 by Saxonia Edelme-
talle GmbH, of Halsbrücke (Germany), represented by Dr Peter
von Woedtke, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of the European
Communities of 28 March 2001 (Decision C(2001)
1028) on the State aid granted by Germany in favour of
EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH & Co. Management KG (now
Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH, together with Zeitzer
Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte GmbH, LandTechnik Schlüter
GmbH, ILKA MAFA Kältetechnik GmbH, SKL Motoren-
und Systembautechnik GmbH, SKL Spezialapparatebau
GmbH, Magdeburger Eisengießerei GmbH, Saxonia Edel-
metalle GmbH and Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH) —
State aid No C41/99 (EXN 49/95) Germany.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

11.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 227/27

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 22 May 2001 by Vero´ nica Sabbag
against the Commission of the European Communities

In 1995 the Federal Republic of Germany gave notice of aid
for the privatisation of eight subsidiaries of
the holding
company EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH, now Lintra Beteiligungs-
holding GmbH. By decision of 13 March 1996, communicated
by letter of 23 April 1996 (1), the Commission informed
Germany of its approval of aid for restructuring measures in
connection with the privatisation of Lintra Beteiligungsholding
GmbH.

required

Germany

reclaim aid

By the contested decision of 28 March 2001, the defendant
totalling
to
has
DEM 34 978 000 from Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH and
the Lintra subsidiaries. Aid amounting to DEM 3 195 559 is
to be reclaimed from the applicant. The defendant asserts that
that aid has been used improperly and in breach of the
statements in the approved restructuring plan. According to
the defendant, the aid granted has reportedly been used to pay
for services provided by Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH.

The applicant submits that the contested decision is unlawful
and void in relation to it if only because it was not granted any
aid whatsoever in breach of the decision of 13 March 1996.

According to the applicant, it is significant that the defendant
has not asserted that the applicant misused the restructuring
aid. The defendant has relied solely on presumptions in its
request for recovery. The applicant states that all the aid which
was received by it was used exclusively for restructuring
measures. Moreover, the amount to be reclaimed from it was
set totally arbitrarily.

Furthermore, all aid from the defendant or from Germany
went to Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH and was passed on
to its subsidiaries only indirectly. For that reason a notice for
recovery can be issued solely to the parent company.

(Case T-113/01)

(2001/C 227/52)

(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 22 May 2001 by Vero´ nica Sabbag,
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
Véronique Peere, avocats, with 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 took part in competition COM/R/A/01/1999.
She is contesting her non-inclusion in the reserve list for the
selection of temporary agents responsible for the management
of technological research and development programmes.

In support of her claim, the applicant alleges:

— infringement of the selection notice, of essential pro-
cedural requirements and of the rules governing the
functioning of selection boards, as well as a manifest
error of assessment;

— breach of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons;

— infringement of the principle of equal treatment;

— non-compliance with the obligation to have regard to the
interests and welfare of officials and violation of the
principle of sound administration.

The applicant is also of the view that no basis is apparent for
claiming that there is joint and several liability between Lintra
Beteiligungsholding GmbH and the subsidiaries. Such liability
is presumably asserted by the defendant solely because the
parent company itself is insolvent.

Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Stefano Cocchi and
Evi Hainz against the Commission of the European
Communities

(1) A summary was published at OJ No C 168, 12.6.1996, p. 10.

(Case T-114/01)

(2001/C 227/53)

(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