CELEX: C2000/285/28
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-188/00: Action brought on 14 July 2000 by Comité International de la Rayonne et des Fibres Synthétiques against the Commission of the European Communities

7.10.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 285/15
The applicant points out in that regard that, one year before it         —     infringement of the Treaty, on account of the contradic-
acquired Massalombarda Colombani, an inspection had been                       tory nature of the reasons given in the contested decision.
carried out jointly by the Italian Finance Ministry and the
Commission at the premises of that company for the purposes
of verifying the implementation of the EAGGF project referred            (1) OJ L 374 of 31.12.1988, p. 1.
to above. Certain irregularities were discovered during the
course of that inspection. The following year (again, prior to
the acquisition by Conserve Italia), various further irregularities
were ascertained. In consequence of those irregularities estab-
lished in 1994, the defendant proceeded in 1997 to discon-
tinue one of the four projects checked (that relating to the
Massalombarda plant).
                                                                         Action brought on 14 July 2000 by Comité International
                                                                         de la Rayonne et des Fibres Synthétiques against the
                                                                                  Commission of the European Communities
By the contested decision, the Commission has now withdrawn
the aid for project No 9.
                                                                                                  (Case T-188/00)
                                                                                                  (2000/C 285/28)
The applicant points out that the situation at issue has arisen
not as a result of any conduct or acts on the part of the
applicant, which now finds itself — solely in consequence of                                 (Language of the case: English)
the acquisition and subsequent amalgamation with Massalom-
barda — formally in dispute with the Commission, but rather
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
as a result of a project organised previously by an earlier
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
company with which the applicant had no connection what-
                                                                         European Communities on 14 July 2000 by Comité Inter-
ever. Despite this, the circumstances surrounding the EAGGF
                                                                         national de la Rayonne et des Fibres Synthétiques (Brussels),
projects of Massalombarda threaten to frustrate the investment
                                                                         represented by Denis Waelbroeck and Mats Johnsson, of
made by Conserve Italia, which it cannot recoup or recover
                                                                         Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels.
from the vendor.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:                          —     annul decision SG(2000)D/102503 of the European
                                                                               Commission contained in its letter of 20 March 2000 to
                                                                               the German Government relating to case N 406/99,
—     irregularities revealed in the Commission’s documenta-                   approving State aid to the undertaking Delon Filament
      tion;                                                                    GmbH;
                                                                         —     in case it finds the decision compatible with the Code on
                                                                               Aid to the Synthetic Fibres Industry, in terms of the
—     infringement of Article 24(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)                capacity reduction required, declare this Code unlawful
      No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down pro-                          under Article 241 EC;
      visions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88
      as regards coordination of the activities of the different
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the present
      Structural Funds between themselves and with the oper-
                                                                               proceedings.
      ations of the European Investment Bank and the other
      existing financial instruments (1). The Commission has
      infringed that provision in two respects:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
      (a)   the irregularities ascertained are wholly irrelevant as      By adopting the contested decision the Commission declared
            regards compliance with the conditions relating to           State aid granted by the German authorities to the undertaking
            the date of commencement of the works, and the               Delon Filament GmbH compatible with the EC Treaty. The aid
            Commission has in any event based its own decision           in question is intended to finance investments in the polyamide
            on an analysis of irrelevant documents, without              fibre production in a plant in Rudolstadt, Thuringia (Germany).
            attaching any weight to more sound evidence made
            available to it;                                             The applicant is a representative of producers of man-made
                                                                         fibres. It seeks the annulment of the decision on the following
                                                                         grounds:
      (b) having ascertained mere ‘irregularities’, it has with-
            drawn the aid, whereas it should, if anything, have          —     The Commission failed to explain how it has arrived at
            simply reduced it;                                                 the capacity figures for Delon quoted in the decision;
 ---pagebreak--- C 285/16              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.10.2000
—    The Commission failed to examine the facts diligently by           Pleas in law and main arguments
     finding that the purported capacity reduction would
     have an effect on competition which would offset the
     detrimental effects of the State aid. The alleged ‘reduction’      The applicants are import/export undertakings established
     of capacity, as described in the contested decision, will          within the Community. Their parent company is Invest-Import
     have no impact on the competitiveness of Delon and will            AG, established in Belgrade. By the contested decision, the
     lead, on the contrary, to a de facto increase in capacity;         applicants have been placed on a list of undertakings which
                                                                        are ‘deemed to be owned or controlled by the Government of
                                                                        the FRY [Federal Republic of Yugoslavia] or the Government
—    The aid in question was not accompanied by real and                of the Republic of Serbia’ (Article 2(2) of Council Regulation
     effective reductions in capacity as provided for in the            (EC) No 1294/1999 (1)). As a result of this, in accordance with
     Code on Aid to the Synthetic Fibres Industry (1) as well as        Article 3(1) of the regulation, the applicants’ accounts in
     in Article 87 EC.                                                  Germany and France are frozen.
                                                                        The applicants complain, first of all, that the contested
                                                                        regulation is contrary to Regulation No 1294/1999. They
(1) OJ 1996 C 94, p. 11.                                                maintain that the Commission has committed an error of law
                                                                        in subsuming the applicants under those companies and
                                                                        entities which, via their parent companies, are controlled by
                                                                        the Government or socially owned. On the contrary, the
                                                                        parent company of the applicants is privately owned by the
                                                                        employees of the undertaking.
                                                                        In addition, the applicants raise the objection, in accordance
                                                                        with Article 241 EC, that Regulation No 1294/1999, in the
                                                                        version contained in Regulation No 723/2000, is illegal,
                                                                        inasmuch as their parent company is wrongly treated by those
Action brought on 18 July 2000 by ‘Invest’ Import                       legal instruments as being ‘socially-owned’.
und Export GmbH and Invest Commerce against the
        Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        The applicants further plead infringement of their rights of
                                                                        defence and violation of the principle of proportionality.
                         (Case T-189/00)                                Lastly, they claim that the contested regulation contains an
                                                                        insufficient statement of reasons.
                         (2000/C 285/29)
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1294/1999 of 15 June 1999 concern-
                                                                            ing a freeze of funds and a ban on investment in relation to the
                                                                            Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and repealing Regulations
                 (Language of the case: German)                             (EC) No 1295/98 and (EC) No 1607/98 (OJ 1999 L 153, p. 63),
                                                                            in the version contained in Council Regulation (EC) No 723/2000
                                                                            of 6 April 2000 (OJ 2000 L 86, p. 1).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 July 2000 by ‘Invest’ Import
und Export GmbH, of Neuss (Federal Republic of Germany),
and Invest Commerce, of Paris, represented by Rolf Wägen-
baur, of Graf von Westphalen Fritze & Modest, Brussels.
                                                                        Action brought on 21 July 2000 by the Regione Siciliana
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               against the Commission of the European Communities
—    annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1147/2000 of                                             (Case T-190/00)
     29 May 2000 amending Annex II to Council Regulation
     (EC) No 1294/1999 concerning a freeze of funds and a
     ban on investment in relation to the Federal Republic of                                     (2000/C 285/30)
     Yugoslavia, in so far as it amends Annex II to Regulation
     No 1294/1999 so as to include the second applicant
     under the heading ‘France’ and the first applicant under                               (Language of the case: Italian)
     the heading ‘Germany’;
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—    order the defendant to pay the costs.                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the