Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2003 in Case T-45/02: DOW AgroSciences BV and DOW AgroSciences Ltd v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Decision No 2455/2001/EC — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2003-08-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), agricultural production, dangerous substance, health risk, infringement of EU law, pharmaceutical product, restriction on competition, water pollution

C 184/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2003

4.

the rate set by the European Central Bank for

orders the Commission to pay default interest to the applicant
at
capital
refinancing operations in force during the various phases of the
period concerned, increased by two percentage points per annum,
on the arrears of pension from 1 January 2001 to 31 March
2001; that interest must be calculated from the various dates at
which each payment under the pension scheme should have been
made, up to the date on which the payment was effected;

5.

in Case T-124/01, orders the parties to bear their own costs;

6.

7.

in Case T-320/01, orders the Commission to bear its own costs
and pay half the applicant's costs.

In Case T-320/01, orders the applicant to bear half his own
costs.

(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.02.

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.

The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 275 29.9.2001.

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 6 May 2003

in Case T-45/02: DOW AgroSciences BV and DOW Agro-
Sciences Ltd v European Parliament and Council of the
European Union (1)

(Decision No 2455/2001/EC — Action for annulment —
Inadmissibility)

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 30 April 2003

(2003/C 184/77)

(Language of the case: English)

in Case T-167/01: Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke GmbH v
Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Action for annulment — Locus standi — Commission
decision ordering recovery of State aid — Action brought
by an undertaking buying up assets of a company required
to repay aid — Inadmissibility)

(2003/C 184/76)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-167/01: Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke GmbH, estab-
lished in Gotha (Germany), represented by M. Matzat, lawyer,
against Commission of
the European Communities (Agents:
V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Buccis) — application for annulment
of Commission Decision 2001/673/EC of 28 March 2001 on
State aid implemented by Germany for EFBE Verwaltungs
GmbH & Co. Management KG (now Lintra Beteiligungsholding
GmbH,
together with Zeitzer Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte
GmbH; LandTechnik Schlüter GmbH; ILKA MAFA Kältetechnik
GmbH; SKL Motoren- und Systembautechnik GmbH; SKL
Spezialapparatebau GmbH; Magdeburger Eisengießerei GmbH;
Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH and Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH)
(OJ 2001 L 236, p. 3) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of V. Tiili, Presi-
dent of the Chamber, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and
Jung, Registrar, made an order on
M. Vilaras,
30 April 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

Judges; H.

In Case T-45/02, DOW AgroSciences BV,
established in
Rotterdam (Netherlands), DOW AgroSciences Ltd, established
in Hitchin (United Kingdom), represented by K. Van Maldegem
and C. Mereu, lawyers, supported by European Crop Protection
Association (ECPA), having its registered office in Brussels
(Belgium), represented by D. Waelbroeck and D. Brinckman,
(Agents: C. Pennera and
lawyers, v European Parliament
the European Union (Agents:
M. Moore) and Council of
M.
supported by
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero
Jordana and K. Fitch), APPLICATION for partial annulment of
Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 20 November 2001 establishing the list of
priority substances in the field of water policy and amending
Directive 2000/60/EC (OJ 2001 L 331, p. 1), the President of
the Court of First Instance has made an order on 6 May 2003,
the operative part of which is as follows:

Sims-Robertson and B. Hoff-Nielsen),

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.

3.

The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay the costs
incurred by the Parliament and the Council.

The Commission and the European Crop Protection Association
shall bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.