Case T-135/02: Action brought on 25 April 2002 by Greencore Group plc against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-07-13
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), fine, interest, redemption

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

13.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 169/39

on Irish Sugar plc. The applicant would point out in this
regard that, as a result of the judgment of the Court of First
instance of 7 October 1999 in Case T-228/97 Irish Sugar -v-
Commission (1), the fine imposed on Irish Sugar by Com-
mission Decision 97/624/EC of 14 May 1997, relating to a
proceeding pursuant to Article 86 of the EC Treaty, was
reduced by 916 674 Euros. The defendant refused to pay
interest on this amount.

— in the alternative, partially annul Decision C (2001) 4447
final of the Commission of the European Communities
of 15 January 2002 to the extent that the claim for
repayment established by the Commission in Article 1
exceeds EUR 2 808 319,95;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

According to the Commission, the implied Decision not to
pay interest, i.e. the payment of the principal sum without
the
interest on 4 January 2000, has become definitive,
applicant not having contested it within the two month time
limit, as provided by Article 230 of the EC Treaty.

The applicant submits in this regard that this reasoning is
materially wrong. Firstly, the initial request was not for actual
payment but for confirmation that interest would be paid; for
advice as to the amount thereof and for assistance in this
matter. Secondly, there is no rule in EC Law according to
which silence must be taken to mean a refusal, unless provision
is specifically made for this. Thirdly, not only is payment of
the refund of 916 674 Euros not a refusal of the initial request
it is also, within the
for confirmation regarding interest,
meaning of Article 230 EC, not an actionable act. It follows
that the Commission’s contention that the applicant should
have challenged it at the time is legally erroneous.

(1) [1999] ECR II-2969.

Action brought on 29 April 2002 by Pollmeier Malchow
GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-137/02)

(2002/C 169/69)

(Language of the case: German)

Pleas in law and main arguments

In Article 1 of the contested decision, the Commission found
that the aid amounting to EUR 3 650 860 granted by Germany
to Pollmeier GmbH, Malchow, was incompatible with the
common market. The applicant is challenging that decision
and claims that the declaration of partial incompatibility with
the common market of
infringes
Community law. All the grounds on which the decision is
founded are based on errors of law or on a manifestly incorrect
assessment of the facts.

the aid granted to it

The applicant claims that it satisfied the SME criteria defined
in the Commission’s Recommendation of 3 April 1996
concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enter-
prises (1) at the time when the aid was granted. Moreover, the
applicant did not circumvent those criteria.

the applicant submits that a review of the
Furthermore,
economic integration in individual cases which is not based
on the SME criteria is illegal because it is precisely those criteria
which must be used to determine whether or not there is
economic integration. In any event, there is no economic
integration.

Alternatively, the applicant submits that the claim for repay-
ment is too high and that its calculation is unclear.

(1) OJ 1996 L 107, p. 4.

Action brought on 26 April 2002 by Nanjing Metalink
International Co. Ltd. against the Council of the European
Union

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 April 2002 by Pollmeier
Malchow GmbH & Co., Malchow (Germany), represented by
S. Völcker and J. Heithecker, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Case T-138/02)

(2002/C 169/70)

(Language of the case: English)

— annul in its entirety Decision C (2001) 4447 final of the
Commission of the European Communities of 15 January
2002;

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European