CELEX: C2001/227/52
Language: en
Date: 2001-08-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-113/01: Action brought on 22 May 2001 by Verónica Sabbag against the Commission of the European Communities

11.8.2001                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 227/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 22 May 2001 by Verónica Sabbag
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                  (Case T-113/01)
In 1995 the Federal Republic of Germany gave notice of aid
for the privatisation of eight subsidiaries of the holding
                                                                                                  (2001/C 227/52)
company EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH, now Lintra Beteiligungs-
holding GmbH. By decision of 13 March 1996, communicated
by letter of 23 April 1996 (1), the Commission informed                                      (Language of the case: French)
Germany of its approval of aid for restructuring measures in
connection with the privatisation of Lintra Beteiligungsholding
GmbH.                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 22 May 2001 by Verónica Sabbag,
                                                                         residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
By the contested decision of 28 March 2001, the defendant                Véronique Peere, avocats, with an address for service in
has required Germany to reclaim aid totalling                            Luxembourg.
DEM 34 978 000 from Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH and
the Lintra subsidiaries. Aid amounting to DEM 3 195 559 is               The applicant claims that the Court should:
to be reclaimed from the applicant. The defendant asserts that           —     annul the decision of the Selection Committee in compe-
that aid has been used improperly and in breach of the                         tition COM/R/A/01/1999 to award the applicant a mark
statements in the approved restructuring plan. According to                    insufficient for her to be included on the reserve list;
the defendant, the aid granted has reportedly been used to pay
for services provided by Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH.                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant submits that the contested decision is unlawful
and void in relation to it if only because it was not granted any        The applicant took part in competition COM/R/A/01/1999.
aid whatsoever in breach of the decision of 13 March 1996.               She is contesting her non-inclusion in the reserve list for the
                                                                         selection of temporary agents responsible for the management
                                                                         of technological research and development programmes.
According to the applicant, it is significant that the defendant         In support of her claim, the applicant alleges:
has not asserted that the applicant misused the restructuring
                                                                         —     infringement of the selection notice, of essential pro-
aid. The defendant has relied solely on presumptions in its
                                                                               cedural requirements and of the rules governing the
request for recovery. The applicant states that all the aid which
                                                                               functioning of selection boards, as well as a manifest
was received by it was used exclusively for restructuring
                                                                               error of assessment;
measures. Moreover, the amount to be reclaimed from it was
set totally arbitrarily.                                                 —     breach of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons;
                                                                         —     infringement of the principle of equal treatment;
                                                                         —     non-compliance with the obligation to have regard to the
Furthermore, all aid from the defendant or from Germany                        interests and welfare of officials and violation of the
went to Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH and was passed on                      principle of sound administration.
to its subsidiaries only indirectly. For that reason a notice for
recovery can be issued solely to the parent company.
The applicant is also of the view that no basis is apparent for
claiming that there is joint and several liability between Lintra
Beteiligungsholding GmbH and the subsidiaries. Such liability            Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Stefano Cocchi and
is presumably asserted by the defendant solely because the               Evi Hainz against the Commission of the European
parent company itself is insolvent.                                                                Communities
                                                                                                  (Case T-114/01)
(1) A summary was published at OJ No C 168, 12.6.1996, p. 10.                                     (2001/C 227/53)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the