Case T-290/01: Action brought on 28 November 2001 by the Land Brandenburg against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-02-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Brandenburg, EU aid, EU programme, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), redemption

16.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 44/19

the decision,

The applicant argues that, by imposing the condition in
Article 3(a) of
the defendant has applied
Article 81(3) EC incorrectly inter alia in that the condition is
not objectively necessary as the use of the collection and
sorting facilities is in no way indispensable for the activities of
competitors. Moreover,
the condition, which is dispro-
portionate, entails an encroachment on the specific subject
matter of the applicant’s trade mark and distortion of compe-
tition to the detriment of the applicant.

The applicant argues, further, that, by imposing the condition
in Article 3(a), the defendant has applied Article 86(2) EC
incorrectly, since the applicant, which is entrusted with a
service of general interest, can no longer operate its country-
wide system under economically viable conditions and make
the necessary adjustments between profitable and less profit-
able sectors.

Moreover, by imposing the condition in Article 3(b) the
defendant has applied Article 86(2) EC incorrectly. Finally, the
defendant, by seeking the commitment of 25 September 1998
(recital 72), has breached the fundamental right to freedom of
access to justice.

(1) OJ C 100, p. 4.
(2) Case T-151/01 Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland

AG v Commission OJ 2001 C 289, p. 6.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is challenging a demand for repayment of
Community grants totalling EUR 464 329,22 made by the
Commission in the contested debit note.

The applicant and the Community concluded, within the
framework of the LIFE project (1), a contract relating to the
planned ‘Ecological revitalisation of
the Brandenburgische
Elbtalaue’: preparatory planning and Gnevsdorfer Werder sub-
project’. The Commission undertook to participate by making
a contribution of 50 % of the actual cost, but not exceeding
ECU 1,5 million. The project thus promoted, which was
designed to prepare the reinstatement of the embankment
between the municipalities of Lenzen and Wustrow, was
finished in 1998. Shortly before the end of the project, it
became apparent that it would not be possible to reinstate the
embankment as extensively as had been planned.

In February 2001 the Commission gave notice that, in its view,
the applicant, in carrying out the project, had partly deviated
from the contract and that, since the applicant had reduced
the surface area of the project, the Commission was only able
to co-finance the work done in the reduced area. By the
contested decision, the Commission called upon the applicant
to repay to it EUR 464 329,33.

Action brought on 28 November 2001 by the Land
Brandenburg against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-290/01)

(2002/C 44/36)

(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 28 November 2001 by the Land
Brandenburg (Germany), represented by G. Schohe and T. Mas-
ing, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision contained in the Commission’s debit
note No 3240305411 of 13.9.2001 addressed to the
applicant,
LIFE94/D/
to
A211/00029/BND re Contract No B4-3200/94/730;

relating

project

No

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

it

instead,

The applicant asserts that the Community is not entitled to
demand the repayment at issue by means of a Commission
decision;
is obliged to have recourse to law
before the national courts. In addition, it maintains that the
Commission has failed to comply with its obligation to provide
a statement of reasons and has violated the applicant’s rights
of defence. Finally, the Commission has infringed the principle
of proportionality.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92 of 21 May 1992 estab-
lishing a financial instrument for the environment (LIFE) (OJ 1992
L 206, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1404/96 of
15.7.1996 (OJ 1996 L 181, p. 1).

Action brought on 30 November 2001 by Dessauer
Versorgungs- und Verkehrsgesellschaft mbH — DVV —
Stadtwerke and four other undertakings against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-291/01)

(2002/C 44/37)

(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 30 November 2001 by Dessauer