Case T-388/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Kronoply and Kronotex v Commission (State aid — Commission decision not to raise objections — Action for annulment — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Publication of a summary notice — No significant effect on the competitive position — Inadmissibility — Status as party concerned — Admissibility — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — No serious difficulties)
Date: 2008-12-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, action for annulment (EU), aid system, regional aid, wood industry

C 32/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.2.2009

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber)
of 10 December 2008 — Nardone v Commission

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December
2008 — Kronoply and Kronotex v Commission

(Case T-57/99) (1)

(Case T-388/02) (1)

(Staff case — Officials — Action for damages — Occupa-
tional disease — Exposure to asbestos and other substances)

(2009/C 32/43)

(State aid — Commission decision not to raise objections —
Action for annulment — Time-limit for bringing proceedings
— Publication of a summary notice — No significant effect
on the competitive position — Inadmissibility — Status as
party concerned — Admissibility — Failure to initiate the
formal investigation procedure — No serious difficulties)

Language of the case: French

(2009/C 32/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Albert Nardone (Piétrain, Belgium) (represented initi-
ally by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, then by L. Levi)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall, agent, and J. L. Fagnart, lawyer)

Re:

Application for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by
the applicant due to the wrongful conduct of the Commission
in exposing the applicant to an atmosphere filled with dust and
contaminated by asbestos.

Parties

Applicants: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG (Heiligengrabe, Germany);
and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG (Heiligengrabe)
(represented
initially by: R. Nierer, subsequently by R. Nierer and L. Gordalla,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: V. Kreuschitz and M. Niejahr, subsequently by
V. Kreuschitz, Agents)

the defendant: Zellstoff Stendal GmbH
Interveners in support of
(represented by: T. Müller-Ibold and K.
(Arneburg, Germany)
U. Karl,
lawyers); Federal
Republic of Germany (represented by: W.D. Plessing and
M. Lumma, Agents); and Land Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany) (repre-
sented by: C. von Donat and G. Quardt, lawyers)

subsequently by T. Müller-Ibold,

Operative part of the judgment

Re:

The Court:

1. orders the Commission to pay to Mr Albert Nardone damages of

EUR 66 000;

Annulment of the Commission's decision of 19 June 2002 to
raise no objections to aid granted by the German authorities to
Zellstoff Stendal for the construction of a production plant for
pulp.

2. dismisses the action as to the remainder;

Operative part of the judgment

3. orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 160, 5.6.1999.

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG
to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commis-
sion of the European Communities and by Zellstoff Stendal GmbH
and Land Sachsen-Anhalt.

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/25

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

3. Orders the Association of European Airlines (AEA) to bear its own

(1) OJ C 44, 22.2.2003.

costs.

(1) OJ C 228, 11.9.2004.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December
2008 — Ryanair v Commission

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December
2008 — HEG and Graphite India v Council

(Case T-196/04) (1)

(Case T-462/04) (1)

(State aid — Agreements entered into by the Walloon Region
and the Brussels South Charleroi airport with the airline
Ryanair — Existence of an economic advantage — Applica-
tion of the private investor in a market economy test)

(Common commercial policy — Anti-dumping duties —
Countervailing duties — Imports of certain graphite electrode
systems originating in India — Rights of the defence —
Equal treatment — Determination of injury — Causal link)

(2009/C 32/45)

Language of the case: English

(2009/C 32/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented: initially by
D. Gleeson, A. Collins, SC, V. Power and D. McCann, Solicitors,
and subsequently by V. Power and D. McCann, J. Swift, QC,
J. Holmes, Barrister, and G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Applicants: HEG Ltd (New Delhi, India); and Graphite India Ltd
(Kolkata,
initially by K. Adamantopoulos,
lawyer, and J. Branton, Solicitor, and subsequently by J. Branton)

(represented:

India)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: N. Khan, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Council of
J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

the European Union (represented by:

Intervener in support of
Airlines
(AEA)
J. Heithecker, lawyers)

the defendant: Association of European
(represented by: S. Völcker, F. Louis and

Intervener
in support of
European Communities
K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

the defendant: Commission of
Scharf
(represented

by: T.

the
and

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of
the Commission Decision of
12 February 2004 concerning advantages granted by the
Walloon Region and Brussels South Charleroi Airport to the
airline Ryanair in connection with its establishment at Charleroi
(OJ 2004 L 137, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Application for
annulment of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1628/2004 of 13 September 2004 imposing a definitive
countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional
duty imposed on imports of certain graphite electrode systems
originating in India (OJ 2004 L 295, p. 4) and of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 1629/2004 of 13 September 2004 imposing a
definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the
provisional duty imposed on imports of certain graphite elec-
trode systems originating in India (OJ 2004 L 295, p. 10).

Operative part of the judgment

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2004/393/EC of 12 February
2004 concerning advantages granted by the Walloon Region and
Brussels South Charleroi Airport to the airline Ryanair in connec-
tion with its establishment at Charleroi;

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of

2. Orders HEG Ltd and Graphite India Ltd to bear their own costs

Ryanair Ltd;

and to pay the costs of the Council;