Case T-196/02: Action brought on 28 June 2002 by MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-09-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Germany, State aid, action for annulment (EU), industrial cooperation, know-how, patents licence

14.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219/21

Action brought on 14 June 2002 by Laurent Piau against
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-193/02)

(2002/C 219/51)

(Language of the case: French)

Moreover,
the applicant alleges inadequate statement of
reasons for the decision. According to the applicant, the
Commission did not investigate the complaint on the basis of
Article 82 of the EC Treaty and did not provide reasons for the
rejection of that part of the complaint. According to the
applicant, FIFA holds a dominant position in the market in
football and abuses its position in the related market in services
linked to player transfers.

The applicant further alleges error of assessment in that, in his
view, FIFA’s rules do not comply with Article 81 of the EC
Treaty and that those rules cannot benefit from an exemption
under Article 81(3).

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 June 2002 by Laurent Piau,
residing in Nantes (France), represented by Marguerite Faucon-
net, lawyer.

The applicant also claims that the Commission infringed
Article 49 of the EC Treaty. In his view, the Commission does
not have the power implicitly to confer a power to lay down
rules on the awarding of diplomas on FIFA.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 15 April 2002;

— order the Commission to pay the cost.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 23 March 1998, the applicant lodged a complaint with the
Commission arguing that the rules applied by FIFA to players’
agents were contrary to Community law. That complaint was
registered by the Commission which then carried out a
thorough investigation. Having heard no more as to progress
on his case, the applicant on 31 January 2001 placed the
Commission on notice and on 31 May 2001 brought an action
for failure to act (Case T-121/00 OJ 2001 C 227, p. 30). On
3 August 2001 the Commission wrote to the applicant
informing him of its intention not to uphold his complaint.
After receiving the applicant’s comments, the Commission
rejected the applicant’s complaint in view of the fact that the
most restrictive provisions were repealed after proceedings
were initiated. In the present case, the applicant contests that
decision.

the applicant alleges,

In support of his application,
first,
manifest error of assessment of the facts and of the law.
According to the applicant, the Commission’s statement that
the most restrictive of the provisions of FIFA’s rules have been
repealed is wrong. Furthermore, other aspects of the rules have
not been correctly assessed either.

Action brought on 28 June 2002 by MTU Friedrichshafen
GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-196/02)

(2002/C 219/52)

(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 June 2002 by MTU Friedrichs-
hafen GmbH of Friedrichshafen (Germany), represented by
F. Montag and T. Lüubig, Lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 3(2) of the Commission’s Decision of
9 April 2002 on German State aid to SKL Motoren- und
Systembautechnik GmbH in so far as Germany is required
by those provisions to recover a sum of EUR 2,71 million
(DEM 5,30 million) from MTU Motoren- und Turbinen-
Union Friedrichshafen GmbH;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

C 219/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.9.2002

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 5 July 2002 by Beatriz Salvador Garcia
against Commission of the European Communities

By this action the applicant
is contesting the obligation
imposed on the Federal Republic of Germany by the Com-
mission in Article 3(2) of the contested decision to recover the
sum of EUR 2,71 million from the applicant. The applicant
claims that
the Commission’s findings which led to the
adoption of Article 3(2) of the contested decision are in many
regards, both substantive and procedural, incorrect.

The applicant contends that the Commission’s claim against
the applicant under State aid law is based exclusively on the
allegation that the applicant acquired certain know-how from
SKL Motoren- und Systembautechnik GmbH (‘SKL-M’) under a
reciprocal licensing and cooperation agreement in 1997 for a
purchase price of DEM 6,71 million, when the actual costs
incurred by SKL-M in developing that know-how exceeded the
sale price. The applicant merely acquired the right to use the
know-how, and the consideration it paid to SKL-M far exceeded
the actual value of the know-how, so that the factual criterion
that the applicant must have received favourable treatment
under Article 87(1) EC is not met.

The applicant also claims that the Commission has failed to
show that the State was accountable for the conduct of SKL-M
in concluding the licensing and cooperation agreement or the
agreement between the applicant and SKL-M’s insolvency
administrator in 2000.

The applicant further contends that the applicant did not
receive favourable treatment meeting the criteria for aid
conferring a competitive advantage. Moreover the Commission
has not shown any actual or potential distortion of competition
on the markets on which the applicant is active, or any
restriction of trade.

Finally the applicant claims that, by one sidedly taking
account of the unsubstantiated allegations of the insolvency
administrator, the Commission failed to fulfil its duty to assess
the facts impartially and completely.

(Case T-205/02)

(2002/C 219/53)

(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 5 July 2002 by Beatriz Salvador
Garcia, residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón Garcia
Gallardo Gil-Fournier and Javier Guillem Carrau, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the decision of

the appointing authority of
27 March 2002 refusing to grant the expatriation allow-
ance and, in consequence, the other related allowances;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The defendant in the present case contests the refusal of the
appointing authority to grant the expatriation allowance and
related allowances (Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations).

In support of her arguments, the applicant claims:

— manifest error of assessment of the facts inasmuch as the
contested decision does not consider the work she did for
a Delegation of an Autonomous Community in Brussels
as ‘work done for another State’ nor the work done by
her for the European Parliament as ‘work done for an
international organisation’ within the meaning of the
Staff Regulations as an exception to the reference period.

— breach of the duty to provide reasons.

— breach of the principle of equal treatment, in that the
appointing authority treated essentially similar situations
differently.