Case T-388/02: Action brought on 23 December 2002 by Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-02-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, action for annulment (EU), aid system, regional aid, wood industry

C 44/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.2.2003

Action brought on 19 December 2002 by Marta Andreas-
en against the Commission of the European Communities

— Breach of Article 50 of the Staff Regulations by using the

applicant’s transfer as a punitive measure, and

(Case T-385/02)

(2003/C 44/75)

(Language of the case: English)

— Breach of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations through the
adoption of a disproportionate and unnecessary measure,
resulting in the applicant’s appointment to a post that is
not suited to her category and grade.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 December 2002 by Marta
Andreasen, Brussels, Belgium, represented by Ian S. Forrester,
QC.

Action brought on 23 December 2002 by Kronoply
GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG against
the Commission of the European Communities

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the implied decision of the Commission rejecting
the applicant’s appeal against her removal from the post
of Accounting Officer

— annul the implied decision of the Commission rejecting
the applicant’s appeal against her transfer to the post of
Principal Adviser

— award her pecuniary damages for an amount of money
to be fixed by the Court, plus interest at 5 % or at such
other rate as may be fixed by the Court

(Case T-388/02)

(2003/C 44/76)

(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 December 2002 by Kronoply
GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG, Heiligengra-
be, Germany, represented by R. Nierer, Rechtsanwalt.

— award her the costs of the present action.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— annul the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2002 (State
Aid No N 240/2002) not to raise any objection to the
Federal Republic of Germany granting State aid to
Zellstoff Stendal GmbH;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

The purpose of the present action is to challenge the Decision
to remove the applicant from office as Accounting Officer and
Bugdet Execution Director in Directorate General Budget and
to transfer her to the position of principal Adviser in Director-
ate General Personnel and Administration.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her conclusions, the applicant submits:

— Breach of the principle of good administration. Failure to
state reasons for the removal in question, and violation
of the Commission’s duty of adequate reasoning for
adoption of a decision having legal effect.

The applicants produce timber-based materials from freshly
felled pine,
including [...] oriented structural boards. Their
action is brought against the Commission’s decision to raise
no objection to the granting of a non-repayable subsidy
of EUR 109,161 million and an investment allowance of
EUR 165,515 million to Zellstoff Stendal GmbH for the
construction of a cellulose factory and the establishment of a

22.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/41

wood procurement undertaking and a logistics undertaking in
Arneburg bei Stendal in the Land Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany,
and also against the provision of an 80 % surety for a loan of
EUR 464,550 million.

Action brought on 24 December 2002 by Sergio Sandini
against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

The applicants claim that the Commission did not fully adhere
to the guidelines and general regulations. It failed to examine
the sectoral effects of the plans on wood as a resource
and adopted too wide a procurement radius. That wide
procurement radius leads in their submission to higher costs
and thus the unprofitability of the undertaking, whereas, if a
smaller procurement radius were used, forest resources would
not be sufficient to supply all wood-processing undertakings
in the region.

The Commission failed to take account of the fact that the aid
beneficiary’s own share was less than the necessary 25 %.

The Commission calculated the number of indirectly created
jobs at too high a figure, so that, instead of the factor of 1,5, a
factor of 1,25 should have been used. The maximum permiss-
ible intensity of aid was therefore only 26,25 %.

In addition, the aid proportion of a State guarantee for a loan
was calculated too low, so that, on a correct calculation, there
was an aid intensity of 33,31 %, which even exceeded the
maximum aid intensity approved by the Commission of
31,5 %.

Council Regulation (EC) No 659/99 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article 88 EC (1) was
infringed, since no formal investigation procedure was opened,
although the Commission had cause for concern. The appli-
cants were thereby hindered in the exercise of their procedural
rights and limited in their right to a hearing.

Since the regional aid guidelines and the provisions of the
multisectoral regional aid framework were not complied with,
none of the exceptions in Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the EC
Treaty can apply.

The Commission further infringed Article 2, Article 3(1)(i),
Article 6, and the third indent of Article 174(1) of the EC
Treaty, as it failed to take account of the environmental impact
when making its decisions. In the applicants’ submission, the
plans being supported would lead to overfelling in order to
meet requirements.

( 1) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

(Case T-389/02)

(2003/C 44/77)

(Language of the case: French)

the European
An action against the Court of
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 24 December 2002 by
Sergio Sandini, residing in Ehlange (Luxembourg), represented
by Juan Ramon Iturriagagoitia and Karine Delvolvé, lawyers.

Justice of

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Court of Justice given on
24 September 2002 and concerning Complaint 2/02-
R(e) lodged by the applicant on 25 January 2002 against
the decision of 25 October 2001;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant, as compensation
for the damage that he has suffered and will in future
suffer, the sum of EUR 350 000, subject to all necessary
reservations, together with default interest at the rate of
10 % per annum from 7 October 1999 until the date of
payment;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, challenges
that institution’s refusal to compensate him for the damage
suffered as a result of his occupational disease, which has
already been recognised by decision of the appointing auth-
ority of 31 May 2001, adopted under Article 73 of the Staff
Regulations, and on the basis of which a sum was paid to him.

The pleas relied on in support of this application are similar to
those in Case T 255/02 H v Court of Justice (OJ C 274 of
9.11.2002, p. 26).