Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 169/38 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 13.7.2002

applicant’s view, the competitive factor should have been 1. European Communities on 23 April 2002 by Travelex Global
The German Government therefore applied for an increase of and Financial Services Limited and Interpayment Services
the notified aid and requested a corrective adjustment of the Limited, represented by Mr Claude Delcorde of Dechert Price
factor from 0,75 to 1. The Commission refused that appli- & Rhoads, London (United Kingdom).
cation and informed the German Government that it did not
regard it as possible to make the requested adjustment.
The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
In its application, the applicant submits that, in adopting its order that, pursuant to the second paragraph of
decision of 5 February 2002, the Commission failed to observe Article 288 EC, the Commission make good the damage
the principle of collegiality and the duty to state reasons, acted caused to the applicants by paying them the sum of
in breach of, first, essential formal and procedural requirements £ 25,5 million;
and, second, a provision to be applied in implementing the EC

—
Treaty and made improper use of its discretion. order that the Commission pay the costs of this application.

The failure to comply with essential formal requirements
consists in, first, the insufficient reasons on which the decision
was based. Furthermore, the Commission made improper use _Pleas in law and main arguments_
of its discretion by misinterpreting the underlying facts in such
a way that it avoided opening the investigation procedure even
though it should, at least, have conducted a preliminary The terms of this application are substantially similar to those
examination. Thus, the Commission failed to comply with the of the application lodged in Case T-195/00 Thomas Cook and
procedural requirements laid down in Regulation No 659/ Interpayment Services -v- Commission( [1] ).
1999, which are intended to safeguard the rights of the
Member States and of the applicant. The applicant’s right to a
( [1] ) OJ C 302, of 21.10.00, p. 24.
hearing was restricted.

Moreover, the applicant submits that the Commission failed
to observe and/or misapplied the content of the provisions of
the multisectoral framework on regional aid and that it
wrongly and incompletely assessed the underlying facts. This
is shown, in particular, by the fact that the Commission failed
**Action brought on 25 April 2002 by Greencore Group**
to recognise the possibility of amending approved aid without
**plc against the Commission of the European Communities**
withdrawing it.

**(Case T-135/02)**
Finally, the applicant contends that this is a case of unequal
treatment because, in another decision adopted at the same
(2002/C 169/68)
time on planned aid in the same sector, the capacity utilisation
rate of the relevant NACE class was correctly taken into
account whereas it was wrongly disregarded in the contested _(Language of the case: English)_
decision.

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 April 2002 by Greencore
Group plc, represented by Mr Alexander Böhlke of Kemmler
Rapp Böhlke, Brussels (Belgium).
**Action brought on 23 April 2002 by Travelex Global and**
**Financial Services Limited and Interpayment Services**
**Limited against the Commission of the European Com-** The applicant claims that the Court should:
**munities**

—
annul Commission Decision BUDG/C-2/RVT/49076 of
**(Case T-131/02)** 11 February 2002;

—
order the Commission to pay the costs.
(2002/C 169/67)

_(Language of the case: English)_
_Pleas in law and main arguments_

An action against the Commission of the European Communi- By the current action, the applicant challenges the Decision to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the refuse to pay interest on part of the competition fine imposed