Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 April 2005 in Case T-88/01, Sniace SA v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Measure of individual concern to the applicant)
Date: 2005-06-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Austria, European Commission, State aid, action for annulment (EU), man-made fibre, regional aid

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/11

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 April 2005

of 12 April 2005

in Case T-88/01, Sniace SA v Commission of the European
Communities (1)

(State aid — Action for annulment — Admissibility —
Measure of individual concern to the applicant)

(2005/C 155/21)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

In Case T-88/01: Sniace SA, established in Madrid (Spain),
represented by J. Baró Fuentes, M. Gómez de Liaño y Botella
and F. Rodríguez Carretero, lawyers, against the Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and J.
Buendía Sierra, with an address for service in Luxembourg),
supported by Republic of Austria (Agents: H. Dossi and
M. Burgstaller, with an address for service in Luxembourg), by
Lenzing Lyocell GmbH & Co. KG, established in Heiligenkreuz
im Lafnitztal (Austria), and by Land Burgenland (Austria), repre-
sented by U. Soltész, lawyer — application for annulment of
Commission Decision 2001/102/EC of 19 July 2000 on State
aid granted by Austria to Lenzing Lyocell GmbH & Co. KG (OJ
2001 L 38, p. 33) — the Court of First
Instance (Fifth
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of P. Lindh, Presi-
dent, R. García-Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, P. Mengozzi and M.E.
Martins Ribeiro, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in
which it:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

2. Orders the applicant

to bear its own costs and to pay those

incurred by the Commission.

3. Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.

in Case T-191/02, Giorgio Lebedef v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Officials — Framework Agreement of 1974 between the
Commission and the trade union and professional organisa-
tions — Repudiation — Adoption of the operational rules —
Confirmation of the Agreement of 4 April 2001 — Admissi-
bility)

(2005/C 155/22)

(Language of the case: French)

repudiated the

In Case T-191/02: Giorgio Lebedef, an official of the Commis-
sion of the European Communities, residing in Senningerberg
(Luxembourg), represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall,
with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for
annulment of the Commission's decision of 5 December 2001,
Framework Agreement of
by which it
20 September 1974, adopted the operational rules concerning
the levels, process and procedure of consultation agreed
between the Commission and the majority of trade union and
professional organisations on 19 January 2000, confirmed the
Agreement of 4 April 2001 on the resources to be made avail-
able to the staff representatives, ratified the provisions on
strikes laid down in Annex I to the Framework Agreement of
20 September 1974,
the
Commission, Mr N. Kinnock, to negotiate with the trade union
and professional organisations and to propose for adoption by
the Commission, before the end of March 2002, a new Frame-
work Agreement and to include in the series of amendments to
the Staff Regulations, on which the trade union and staff orga-
nisations were to be consulted, an amendment providing for
the opportunity to adopt electoral rules by way of a vote by
the staff of the institution, and,
if necessary, annulment of
Mr Kinnock's letter of 22 November 2001 addressed to the
President of each trade union to notify them of his decision to
ask the Commission to repudiate, on 5 December 2001, the
above-mentioned Framework Agreement of 20 September
1974, and to adopt several of the above-mentioned points, and
annulment of Mr E. Halskov's decision of 6 December 2001

requested the Vice-President of