Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

28.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 212/25

**ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST** The applicant claims that the Court should:
**INSTANCE**

—
annul Article 1(1) and (3) and Article 3 of the Commission’s decision C(2000) 2466 final of 26 July 2000( [1] ),
**of 2 April 2001**
in so far as the Commission declares therein that the aid
granted by Germany for project 1014, amounting to
**in Case T-24/01 R: Claire Staelen v European Parliament** DEM 701 664,50, is incompatible with the common
**and Council of the European Union** market;

—
_**(Application for interim relief — Officials — Non-admission**_ order the Commission to pay the costs.
_**to later stages of a competition — Urgency — None)**_

(2001/C 212/47)
_Pleas in law and main arguments_

_(Language of the case: French)_ In 1996 the applicant acquired the mobile radio products
division of the German company FUBA Hans Kolbe & Co.
In Case T-24/01 R: Claire Staelen, member of the temporary That company had collaborated, during the period from
staff of the European Parliament, residing in Bridel (Luxem- 1994 to 1996, in a research and development project (probourg), represented by J. Choucroun, lawyer, with an address ject 1014) implemented by a subsidiary of the SICAN Group
for service in Luxembourg, against European Parliament in relation to repeater systems in the Land of Lower Saxony.
(Agents: Y. Pantalis and J.F. De Wachter) and Council of the The Land of Lower Saxony had promoted that project by
European Union (Agents: F. Anton and A. Pilette) — appli- granting State aid, which the Commission held, in the contestcation, essentially, for an order suspending the procedure ed decision, to be incompatible with the common market. The
recruiting successful candidates in competition EUR/A/151/98 Land thereupon demanded the return of the amount of the
to recruit French-speaking administrators, organised by the aid.
European Parliament, and an order requiring the Parliament
and the Council, together, to produce all the minutes relating
to the tests in that competition and to reply to a number of The applicant maintains that the defendant has committed a
questions put by the applicant — the President of the Court of significant breach of its obligation to provide a statement of
First Instance made an order on 2 April 2001, the operative reasons, as prescribed by Article 253 EC. It claims that, in the
part of which is as follows: context of the legal assessment contained in its decision, the
defendant devoted only three sentences to project 1014 and
1. _The application is dismissed;_ provided no reasons whatsoever as to why the project did not
fulfil the criteria of industrial research within the meaning of
2. _Costs are reserved._ Annex I to the Community framework( [2] ).

Furthermore, the contested decision is contrary to
Article 87(3)(c) EC. It wrongly concludes that project 1014
fulfils neither the criteria of industrial research nor those of
competitive development. The defendant was not entitled to
deny that project 1014 involved precompetitive development
by arguing that that project concerned the development of a
**Action brought on 22 March 2001 by Huber + Suhner**
commercial repeater system. The project resulted in the
**MRS GmbH against the Commission of the European**
development only of prototypes for essential components of
**Communities**
the repeater system. The research activities were limited to
preparatory work, and the prototypes developed by the project
**(Case T-68/01)** partners were not yet capable of being used for commercial
purposes. Consequently, the defendant has infringed the
Community framework by concluding that project 1014 went
(2001/C 212/48)
beyond the stage of precompetitive development.

_(Language of the case: German)_
( [1] ) OJ 2001 L 18, p. 18.
( [2] ) Community framework for state aid for research and development
An action against the Commission of the European Communi(OJ 1996 C 45, p. 5).
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 March 2001 by Huber + Suhner
MRS GmbH, of Bad Salzdetfurth (Germany), represented by
Hans-Jörg Niemeyer and Egbert Wilms, Rechtsanwälte, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.