Case T-131/02: Action brought on 23 April 2002 by Travelex Global and Financial Services Limited and Interpayment Services Limited against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-07-13
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), intellectual property, monetary union, stock-exchange transaction

C 169/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13.7.2002

applicant’s view, the competitive factor should have been 1.
The German Government therefore applied for an increase of
the notified aid and requested a corrective adjustment of the
factor from 0,75 to 1. The Commission refused that appli-
cation and informed the German Government that it did not
regard it as possible to make the requested adjustment.

In its application, the applicant submits that, in adopting its
decision of 5 February 2002, the Commission failed to observe
the principle of collegiality and the duty to state reasons, acted
in breach of, first, essential formal and procedural requirements
and, second, a provision to be applied in implementing the EC
Treaty and made improper use of its discretion.

The failure to comply with essential formal requirements
consists in, first, the insufficient reasons on which the decision
was based. Furthermore, the Commission made improper use
of its discretion by misinterpreting the underlying facts in such
a way that it avoided opening the investigation procedure even
though it should, at least, have conducted a preliminary
examination. Thus, the Commission failed to comply with the
procedural requirements laid down in Regulation No 659/
1999, which are intended to safeguard the rights of the
Member States and of the applicant. The applicant’s right to a
hearing was restricted.

Moreover, the applicant submits that the Commission failed
to observe and/or misapplied the content of the provisions of
it
the multisectoral
wrongly and incompletely assessed the underlying facts. This
is shown, in particular, by the fact that the Commission failed
to recognise the possibility of amending approved aid without
withdrawing it.

framework on regional aid and that

Finally, the applicant contends that this is a case of unequal
treatment because, in another decision adopted at the same
time on planned aid in the same sector, the capacity utilisation
rate of the relevant NACE class was correctly taken into
account whereas it was wrongly disregarded in the contested
decision.

Action brought on 23 April 2002 by Travelex Global and
Financial Services Limited and Interpayment Services
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-131/02)

(2002/C 169/67)

(Language of the case: English)

European Communities on 23 April 2002 by Travelex Global
and Financial Services Limited and Interpayment Services
Limited, represented by Mr Claude Delcorde of Dechert Price
& Rhoads, London (United Kingdom).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order

that, pursuant

to the second paragraph of
Article 288 EC, the Commission make good the damage
caused to the applicants by paying them the sum of
£ 25,5 million;

— order that the Commission pay the costs of this appli-

cation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The terms of this application are substantially similar to those
of the application lodged in Case T-195/00 Thomas Cook and
Interpayment Services -v- Commission (1).

(1) OJ C 302, of 21.10.00, p. 24.

Action brought on 25 April 2002 by Greencore Group
plc against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-135/02)

(2002/C 169/68)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 April 2002 by Greencore
Group plc, represented by Mr Alexander Böhlke of Kemmler
Rapp Böhlke, Brussels (Belgium).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision BUDG/C-2/RVT/49076 of

11 February 2002;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the

By the current action, the applicant challenges the Decision to
refuse to pay interest on part of the competition fine imposed