CELEX: C2001/186/22
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-88/01: Action brought on 24 April 2001 by Sniace, S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

C 186/14              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      30.6.2001
                              — Registration of the mark in             Pleas in law and principal arguments
                                  question would accord with
                                  the other aspects of the
                                  decision-making practice fol-         The applicant pleads, with reference to the judgment in
                                  lowed by the Boards of                Antillean Rice Mills, that safeguard measures must be of a
                                  Appeal.                               temporary nature. It maintains that no assessment whatever
                                                                        has been carried out, let alone any examination of the need for
                              — Infringement,         alternatively     an extension.
                                  misinterpretation,             of
                                  Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regu-
                                  lation No 40/94.                      For the rest, the pleas in law and main arguments are analogous
                                                                        to those in Cases T-94/00 and T-332/00.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                          (1) What is meant is Commission Regulation (EC) No 396/2001 of
                                                                            27 February 2001 providing for the continued application of
                                                                            safeguard measures for imports from the overseas countries and
                                                                            territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of
                                                                            origin for the period 1 March to 30 June 2001 (OJ L 58 of
                                                                            28.2.2001, p. 13).
Action brought on 13 April 2001 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                                                                        Action brought on 24 April 2001 by Sniace, S.A. against
                          (Case T-87/01)                                       the Commission of the European Communities
                         (2001/C 186/21)                                                            (Case T-88/01)
                                                                                                   (2001/C 186/22)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 April 2001 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV, established at Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
G. van der Wal, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch.              European Communities on 24 April 2001 by Sniace, S.A.,
                                                                        established in Madrid, represented by José Luis Baró Fuentes,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Miguel Angel Gómez de Liaño y Botella and Fernando
                                                                        Rodrı́guez Carretero, abogados.
—    annul Regulation No 376/2001 (1);
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    rule that the Community is liable for the damage suffered
     by the applicant as a result of the fact that, since 1 March       —     annul Article 1 of the decision of 19 July 2000, inasmuch
     2001, the importation of the products referred to in                     as it establishes that the provision of guarantees amount-
     Regulation No 376/2001 has been prevented or restricted                  ing to EUR 35,80 million does not constitute State aid
     in consequence of that regulation, and order that the                    within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty;
     parties should seek to reach agreement on the extent of
     the damage suffered by the applicant, and that, if no such         —     annul Article 2 of the decision, inasmuch as it establishes
     agreement is reached, the proceedings are to be resumed                  that the aid granted by Austria to LLG through the
     within a time-limit to be specified by the Court, with a                 provision of a guarantee amounting to EUR 14,5 million
     view to determining the quantum of the damage, and                       by WiBAG complies with the guarantee guidelines
     further order the Community to pay the damages pro-                      approved by the Commission under number No 542/95;
     visionally quantified and yet to be quantified, alternatively
     to pay such compensation as the Court may deem fair                —     annul Article 3 of the decision, inasmuch as it establishes
     and equitable, together with interest thereon at the rate                that the individual aid which Austria has granted in the
     of 8 % per annum from the date of the application until                  form of aid amounting to EUR 0,4 million for land
     payment in full;                                                         acquisition and in the form of equity capital amounting
                                                                              to EUR 21,8 million is compatible with the common
—    order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   market;
 ---pagebreak--- 30.6.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 186/15
—     alternatively, annul Article 1 of the decision of 19 July          —     manifest error in the calculation of the overall aid
      2000, inasmuch as it establishes that the fixed-price                    intensity. The applicant points out in that connection
      guarantees by the Province of Burgenland for the pro-                    that the calculation leaves out of account environmental
      vision of process utilities and the provision of aid of an               aid and other eligible costs, as well as existing aid. The
      unknown amount in the form of the creation of com-                       defendant should have examined not only whether the
      pany-specific infrastructure do not constitute aid within                threshold fixed by the scheme was observed but also
      the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty;                           whether the aid, despite pursuing a different objective,
                                                                               covers jointly eligible costs as provided for in the
                                                                               directives on State aid designed to achieve regional
—     order the European Commission to pay all the costs.                      objectives.
                                                                         Lastly, the applicant argues that the application of the excep-
                                                                         tions laid down in Article 87(3) of the EC Treaty is unlawful,
                                                                         and that the procedural rules provided for in Article 88(3) of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the Treaty have been infringed.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 38 of 8.2.01, p. 33.
The present action is directed against Commission Decision
2001/102/EC of 19 July 2000 on State aid granted by Austria
to Lenzing Lyocell GmbH & Co KG (hereinafter ‘LLG’), notified
under document number C(2000) 2454) (1). That aid was
linked to a project for the construction of a new plant for the
production of Lyocell, a new type of man-made staple fibre
produced from natural cellulose in wood pulp.
                                                                         Action brought on 27 April 2001 by Marie-Claude Girar-
In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:                          dot against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                                         ties
—     an error of law, inasmuch as no consideration has been
      given to the sectorial effects of the aid granted to LLG. It                                  (Case T-92/01)
      is asserted in that regard that, in the contested decision,
      the Commission attached greater importance to the                                            (2001/C 186/23)
      regional aspect of the aid than to the sectorial aspect, as
      regards both the rules governing compatibility and the
      procedural rules. In particular, the applicant is unable to
      see how the defendant, knowing that the fibres market is                               (Language of the case: French)
      suffering from problems of overcapacity, could have
      authorised a State aid scheme in favour of LLG allowing
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      new production capacity to be established in the Burgen-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      land region. The applicant also considers that the Com-
                                                                         European Communities on 27 April 2001 by Marie-Claude
      mission has failed to take into account the existence of
                                                                         Girardot, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis
      specific measures applicable to the man-made fibres
                                                                         and Véronique Peere, avocats, having an address for service in
      sector;
                                                                         Luxembourg.
—     a manifest error of assessment of the innovative character         The applicant claims that the Court should:
      of the product. The applicant observes that one of the
      criteria used by the Commission in order to authorise              —     annul the decision of the Selection Committee in Compe-
      certain of the contested measures is the innovative                      tition COM/R/A/01/1999 to award the applicant a mark
      character of the product and of the production process.                  insufficient for her to be included on the reserve list;
      In its view, Lyocell is not innovative, either as a product
      or as a production process. Consequently, there do not             —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      exist two distinct product markets limiting the effects on
      competition;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     disregard of the obligation to provide a statement of
      reasons, inasmuch as no justification has been given for
      the finding that the aid investment will have only a               The applicant in the present case challenges her non-inclusion
      limited effect on competition;                                     on the reserve list for Competition COM/R/A/01/1999.