Case T-198/06: Action brought on 21 July 2006 — Rathscheck Schiefer und Dach-Systeme and Others v Commission
Date: 2006-09-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, State aid, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, production technique, research and development, small and medium-sized enterprises

C 237/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.9.2006

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2006 —
Kingdom of Denmark v Commission of the European
Communities

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Wilderspin and G. Boudot, agents)

(Case T-5/06) (1)

(Declining of jurisdiction)

(2006/C 237/14)

Language of the case: Danish

Re:

Suspension of the operation of the Commission's decision to
reject the applicant's tender in connection with the tendering
procedure for supplies to various countries in Central Asia
(EuropeAid/122078/C/S/Multi).

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by:
acting as Agent)

J. Molde,

Operative part of the order

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Konstantinidis and H Støvlbaek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision
2005/717/EC of 13 October 2005 amending for the purposes
of adapting to the technical progress the Annex to Directive
2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on
the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in
electrical and electronic equipment (OJ 2005 L 271, p. 48).

Operative part of the order

1. The Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in Case T-5/06
Denmark v Commission so that the Court of Justice may rule on
the request for annulment.

2. The costs are reserved.

(1) OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

1. The operation of the Commission's decision to award the tender to
IGN France international in connection with the tendering proce-
dure for supplies to various countries in Central Asia (EuropeAid/
122078/C/S/Multi)
contract
concluded by the Commission with IGN France international are
suspended until the Court of First Instance has ruled on the appli-
cation in the main proceedings.

the performance

and

the

of

2. Costs are reserved.

Action brought on 21 July 2006 — Rathscheck Schiefer
und Dach-Systeme and Others v Commission

(Case T-198/06)

(2006/C 237/16)

Language of the case: German

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 20
July 2006 — GLOBE v Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-114/06 R)

(Public procurement — Community tendering procedure —
Procedure for interim relief — Prima facie case — Urgency)

(2006/C 237/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Rathscheck Schiefer und Dach-Systeme KG (Mayen,
Germany), Nikolaus Theis Nachf. Böger GmbH (Bundenbach,
Germany) and I.B. Rathscheck Söhne KG Moselschiefer-Berg-
werke (Mayen, Germany) (represented by: T. Risse, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Applicant: GLOBE NV (Zandhoven, Belgium) (represented by: A.
Abate, lawyer)

Declare invalid Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 8
March 2006 on Germany's State aid No C 31/2004 (ex
NN 53/2004) to Magog Schiefergruben GmbH & Co. KG.

Form of order sought

30.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/9

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

The applicants contest Article 1 of Commission Decision
C (2006) 641 final of 8 March 2006, by which the Commis-
sion decided that the State aid awarded by Germany to Schie-
fergruben Magog GmbH & Co. KG, a competitor of the appli-
cants,
in
accordance with Article 87(3)(c) EC.

is compatible in part with the common market

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceed-

ings.

The applicants took part in the Commission's formal verifica-
tion procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their claim, the applicants allege infringement of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001
on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to
State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2001 L 10,
p. 33) in the version amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 364/2004 of 25 February 2004 (OJ 2004 L 63, p. 22).

In the applicants' view, there is eligibility for aid under Articles
5a and 5b of Regulation No 70/2001 only if the new produc-
tion process, the implementation of which was assisted by the
aid, is a precompetitive development. They submit that that is
not the case in the present situation, since the prototype for
which aid was granted is not innovative.

Furthermore, the applicants submit in support of their claim
that there is here no eligibility for aid under Article 4 of Regu-
lation No 70/2001. There is eligibility only where the produc-
tion process receiving aid is significantly changed from the
previous production process. That precondition is not met in
this case since the working procedure in the production
process has remained the same.

Action brought on 26 July 2006 — IBERDROLA v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-200/06)

(2006/C 237/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

IBERDROLA S.A.

(represented by:
Applicant:
J. Alfaro Aguila-Real, P. Liñán Hernández, S. Martínez Lage,
H. Brokelmann and J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyers)

(Bilbao, Spain)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The present action is directed against the Decision of the Euro-
pean Commission of 25 April 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4110
— E.ON/ENDESA) declaring compatible with the common
market
the concentration whereby E.ON AG proposes to
acquire control of the whole of the shares in ENDESA SA.

The applicant claims in that regard that,
in its opinion, the
contested decision disregards the serious risks that coordinated
effects will be produced in the relations of competition
between the principal operators with a pan-European presence,
which must be examined in a transaction of this magnitude
and having these characteristics, that it affects the dominant
undertakings in two of the main national energy markets.

In support of its claims, the applicant maintains that the defen-
dant has:

— infringed the principle of sound administration by carrying
out a biased and inadequate investigation of the operation
of the affected markets and of the impact of the transaction
in those markets;

— made an error of law by basing its examination of the
transaction on a consideration of
the national markets,
contrary to the Merger Regulation and the Community
case-law;

— failed to fulfil its obligation to ensure the coherent applica-
tion of the rules on the control of concentrations and the
abuse of a dominant position in examining the notified
transaction, authorising it without having examined the
origin of the funds which E.ON proposed to use for the
acquisition of ENDESA, in order to determine whether such
a concentration could be the result of an abuse of a domi-
nant position;

— made a series of manifest errors of assessment and ignored
certain relevant elements by concluding that the compat-
ibility of the transaction does not raise serious doubts and
adopting the decision authorising it in Phase 1. The appli-
cant emphasises
regard that, although it was
adopted on the basis of the new Merger Regulation, which
requires a more sophisticated and rigorous analysis, the
contested decision:

in that

— wholly ignores the negative impact which the transac-
tion will have on the process of the integration of the
national wholesale markets, which will culminate in the
completion of the single European market in gas and
electricity,

— did not sufficiently evaluate the impact of the proposed
transaction on the emergent pan-European market for
the supply of electricity to multinational undertakings,