Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2004 in Case T-198/01: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Action for annulment — Private creditor test — Aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty — Rights of the defence — Statement of reasons)
Date: 2004-09-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, State aid, action for annulment (EU), aid for restructuring, control of State aid, glass industry

25.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/15

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 July 2004

in Case T-198/01: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH v
Commission of the European Communities (1)

(State aid — Action for annulment — Private creditor test
— Aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty —
Rights of the defence — Statement of reasons)

(2004/C 239/30)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-198/01: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH,
established in Ilmenau (Germany),
represented initially by
S. Gerrit and C. Arhold and subsequently by C. Arhold and
N. Wimmer,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against the Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Bucci, with an address for
service in Luxembourg), supported by Schott Glas, established
in Mainz (Germany), represented by U. Soltész, lawyer — appli-
cation for annulment of Commission Decision 2002/185/CE of
12 June 2001 on State aid implemented by Germany for Tech-
nische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (Germany) (OJ 2002 L 62, p.
30) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, P.
Lindh, J.D. Cooke, H. Legal and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges;
D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judg-
ment on 8 July 2004, in which it:

1. Dismisses the action;

of 6 July 2004

in Case T-281/01: Hubert Huygens v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Officials — Reporting procedure — Delay in the drawing-
up of the staff report — Reasonable period — Action for
damages — Material and non-material damage — Promo-
tions procedure — Implied rejection of the applicant's promo-
tion — Action for annulment — Decision not to promote the
applicant in the 2000 promotions procedure — Lack of state-
ment of reasons — Decision to promote 54 officials in the
2000 promotions procedure — Inadmissibility)

(2004/C 239/31)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-281/01, Hubert Huygens, an official of the Commis-
sion of the European Communities, residing in Olm (Luxem-
bourg), represented by S. Nyssens, lawyer, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities (Agents: J. Curral and F. Clotuche-Duvieu-
sart, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application
for compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the
delay in the reporting procedure in respect of the applicant in
the 1997/1999 procedure and, secondly, an application for the
annulment of the implied rejection by the Commission of the
claim for compensation for the damage suffered as a result of
such delay, of the implied decision of the Commission refusing
to promote the applicant to Grade B 1 in the 200 promotions
procedure and of the decision of the commission to promote
54 officials to Grade B 1 in the 2000 promotions procedure
and, in any event, of the decision of the Director of the Office
for official publications of
the European Communities to
promote 4 officials to Grade B 1 as part of the 2000 promo-
tions procedure — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, P. Mengozzi and M.E.
Marins Ribeiro, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, gave a judgment on 6 July 2004, in which it:

1. Orders the Commission to pay to the applicant EUR 500 in

compensation for the non-material damage suffered by him;

2. Annuls the decision of the Commission not to promote the appli-
cant to Grade B 1 in the 2000 promotions procedure which
emerges from the publication in Administrative Notices No 31 of
6 April 2000 of the list of officials promoted to that grade;

2. Orders the applicant

to bear its own costs and to pay those
incurred by the Commission and by the intervener in the main
action and the interlocutory proceedings.

3. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

4. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.

(1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.