Case T-121/03: Action brought on 10 April 2003 by Greenpeace Limited and Nexgen Group Limited (trading as ECOTRICITY) against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-08-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, action for annulment (EU), aid for restructuring, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy production

C 184/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2003

Directive 2000/60/EC (OJ 2001 L 331, p. 1), the Court of First
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President,
J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an
order on 6 May 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 23 April 2003

1.

2.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

in Case T-73/03: Bernard Zaoui and Others v Commission
of the European Communities (1)

The applicant
shall bear
incurred by the Parliament and the Council.

its own costs and pay the costs

(Non-contractual liability of the Community — Application
manifestly unfounded)

3.

The Commission shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 144 of 15.06.2002.

(2003/C 184/82)

(Language of the case: French)

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 30 April 2003

in Case T-154/02: Villiger Söhne GmbH v Council of the
European Union (1)

residing

In Case T-73/03, Bernard Zaoui, residing in Combs La Ville
(France), Lucien Zaoui, residing in Netanya (Israel) and Deborah
represented by
in Ramat Gan (Israel),
Zaoui,
J.A. Buchinger,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against the Commission of the European Communities
— application for compensation for damage allegedly suffered
by the applicants following an attack carried out in Netanya
(Israel) on 27 March 2002 — the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, H. Legal and
M.E. Martins Ribero, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
on 23 April 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

(Action for annulment — Article 3(1) and first indent of
Article 4(2) of Directive 2002/10/EC — Structure and rate
of excise duty applied on manufactured tobacco — Manifestly
inadmissible)

1)

2)

The application is rejected.

The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ 2003 C 124.

(2003/C 184/81)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-154/02: Villiger Söhne GmbH, established in Wald-
shut-Tiengen (Germany), represented by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer,
against Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Gijón and
M. Simm) — application for annulment of Article 3(1) of
Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002 amending
Directives 92/79/EEC, 92/80/EEC and 95/59/EC as regards the
structure and rates of excise duty applied on manufactured
tobacco (OJ 2002 L 46, p. 26) and, in the alternative, of the
first indent of Article 4(2) of that directive — the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, Presi-
dent of the Chamber, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, made an order on 30 April 2003, the operative part
of which is as follows:

1.

2.

3.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to
intervene.

(1) OJ C 191 10.8.02.

Action brought on 10 April 2003 by Greenpeace Limited
and Nexgen Group Limited (trading as ECOTRICITY)
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-121/03)

(2003/C 184/83)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 April 2003 by Greenpeace
Limited, London, United Kingdom, and Nexgen Group Limited
(trading as ECOTRICITY), Gloucestershire, United Kingdom,
represented by P. Lasok QC, Mr J. Turner and Ms R. Haynes,
Barristers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Contested Decision and order the Commission

to pay the Applicants costs.

2.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/37

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicants in the present case seek the annulment of the
Commission's Decision approving the grant by the United
in the form of ‘rescue aid’, to British
Kingdom of State aid,
Energy plc (BE), a generator of electricity in the United
Kingdom. The main source of its electricity is nuclear power.

The applicants contend that the contested Decision is unlawful
in as much as it
failed adequately or properly to assess
whether the aid was warranted by serious social difficulties,
and whether the amount of aid was restricted to the minimum
necessary, both in accordane with point 23(e) of the Guidelines
on State aid for Rescuing and Restructureting firms in diffi-
culty (1).

in the absence of

In particular, the applicants submit that the defendant institu-
the aid in
tion wrongly concluded that,
question, BE would be insolvent and would most certainly
have to cease operations, without considering whether puttig
BE into administration would have been an appropriate rescue
option entailing the grant of
the possibility
involving the closure of only one or several of its plants as
opposed to all of them.

less aid, nor

Moreover,
the applicants dissagree with the Commision's
conclusion that nuclear plants cannot be mothballed and that
BE's plants could not be closed without giving rise to serious
concerns over nuclear safety.

that

submit

the applicants

the Commission have
Finally,
wrongly concluded that the closure of BE's plants led to a
loss of 20 % of UK electricity generating capacity such as to
threaten security of supply and, in any event, failed to consider
the reduced impact on generating capacity of closing only one
or several of BE's plants.

(1) OJ 1999 No C 288, p. 2.

Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Michael Cwik against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-157/03)

(2003/C 184/84)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 April 2003 by Michael Cwik,
residing at Tervuren, Belgium, represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

— annul the Secretary-General's decision of 13 June 2002
which confirms, without amendment, the applicant's staff
report for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;

— annul

the Commission's decision of 13 January 2003
lodged by the applicant on

rejecting the complaint
13 September 2002;

— order the defendant to pay damages of EUR 10 000;

— order the defendant to pay the full costs of the proceed-

ings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an official in DG II of the European Commis-
sion. With a delay of almost two years, the appellant was the
subject of a staff report for the period 1997 to 1999. That
report was confirmed by the appeal assessor.

The applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest
error of assessment and misused its powers in drawing up that
report. In support of his claims, the applicant also maintains
that the Commission failed to comply with Article 43 of the
Staff Regulations, thus giving rise to procedural defects. Finally,
failed to comply with its obligation to state
the defendant
reasons.

Action brought on 4 May 2003 by Scania AB against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-163/03)

(2003/C 184/85)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 May 2003 by Scania AB, Söder-
tälje, Sweden, represented by Mr S. Pappas, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Decision of 4 Mars 2003 of the Merger Task

Force of the European Commission.

— annul the Decision of 16 April 2003 of the Merger Task

Force of the European Commission.

— annul the Decision of 24 April 2003 of the Merger Task

Force of the European Commission.

— annul

the refusal of

the Commission to review the
arrangement of
the shareholding of
Volvo in Scania and enforce an immediate divestiture as
requested during the meeting of the 20th February 2003
and put on in the letter of the 21st February 2003.

the divestiture of