Case T-6/06: Action brought on  13 January 2006  — Mopro-Nord GmbH v Commission
Date: 2006-03-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, State aid, action for annulment (EU), building subsidy, dairy industry, investment aid, milk product

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/29

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision the Commission exempted the mate-
rial DecaBDE in polymeric applications from the prohibition
contained in Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the
use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic
equipment (2) (‘the basic directive’).

The Danish Government submits that the contested decision is
defective in law inasmuch as DecaBDE in polymeric applica-
tions is exempted from the prohibition in the basic directive,
contrary to the conditions laid down therein, on the grounds
that

— such an exemption is not necessary in the light of scientific

and technical progress;

— the Commission did not exempt a specific application of
the material from the prohibition but in practice introduced
an across-the-board exemption for all polymeric applica-
tions;

— the Commission failed to record that no possibilities for
substituting or eliminating DecaBDE in polymeric applica-
tions have been found, which the Danish Government
submits it ought to have done; and

— the Commission did not carry out an assessment to deter-
mine whether the negative burden in terms of environment,
health and/or consumer protection which would result
from substitution would be greater
than the potential
advantages
environment, health and/or
in terms of
consumer protection.

The Danish Government also submits that the Commission
attached weight to an unlawful criterion, namely a general risk
assessment of the exempted material DecaBDE, and that the
decision is vitiated by a fundamental formal defect inasmuch as
the Commission failed to provide adequate reasons as to why it
took the view that the conditions for exempting DecaBDE in
polymeric applications from the prohibition in the basic direc-
tive had been satisfied.

(1) OJ 2005 L 271, p. 48.
(2) OJ 2003 L 37, p. 19.

Action brought on 13 January 2006 — Mopro-Nord
GmbH v Commission

(Case T-6/06)

(2006/C 74/54)

Language of the case: German

— annul paragraphs 25 to 27 of the defendant's decision on
State aid No N 363/2004 of 6 September 2005 (OJ 2005
C 262, p. 5) in so far as they are based on assertions made
by the German authorities that expenditure incurred before
the Commission approved this individually notifiable aid,
relating to the investment premium (investment subsidy), is
not eligible for aid;

— in the alternative, annul the defendant's decision on State
aid No N 363/2004 of 6 September 2005 (OJ 2005 C
262, p. 5) in its entirety;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision,

The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2005) 3310
final of 6 September 2005 relating to State aid No N 363/
2005 for the construction of a whey refining plant. The benefi-
that aid is Mopro-Nord GmbH in Mecklenburg-
ciary of
Vorpommern.
the Commission
informed the Federal Republic of Germany that the aid notified
by it is EC-compatible. The applicant contests the decision in
particular in so far as it is based on assertions made by the
German authorities
incurred before the
that expenditure
Commission approved this individually notifiable aid, relating
to the investment premium (investment subsidy), is not eligible
for aid.

In support of its claim the applicant submits that the defen-
dant's determination of the facts is erroneous. It also complains
of a breach of the obligation to give reasons under Article 253
EC and infringement of the principles of legal security and
certainty. Moreover, by the contested decision, the Commission
has infringed Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1)
and the principle of sound administration. The contested deci-
sion is also in breach of Article 87(3)(c) EC in conjunction with
the Community framework for State aid in the agricultural
sector (2). Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission's
decision infringes the principle of protection of
legitimate
expectations and the prohibition of discrimination.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
Treaty (OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1).

(2) OJ 2000 C 28, p. 2, and OJ 2000 C 232, p. 19.

Action brought on 23 January 2006 — Giant (China) v
Council

(Case T-17/06)

(2006/C 74/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mopro-Nord GmbH (Altentreptow, Germany) (repre-
sented by: L. Harings and C.H. Schmidt)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Applicant: Giant (China) Co., Ltd (Kunshan City, China) [repre-
sented by: P. De Baere, lawyer]