CELEX: C2001/186/23
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-92/01: Action brought on 27 April 2001 by Marie-Claude Girardot against the Commission of the European Communities

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.
 ---pagebreak--- C 186/16              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     30.6.2001
In support of her claim the applicant alleges:                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—    Infringement of the selection notice, of essential pro-            The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the
     cedural requirements, and of the rules governing the               ECB of 25 September 2000 refusing her the benefit of an
     operation of selection boards (principle of independence);         educational allowance, and the decisions of the ECB of
                                                                        21 December 2000, rejecting the appellant’s administrative
—    The existence, in casu, of a manifest error of assessment;         review, and of 20 February 2000, rejecting the appellant’s
                                                                        grievance.
—    Breach of the obligation to provide reasons;
—    Infringement of the principle of transparency;                     The educational allowance was refused to the applicant on the
                                                                        basis of Article 19 of the Conditions of Employment of the
                                                                        staff of the ECB. According to that article, members of the staff
—    Infringement of the principle of equal treatment.
                                                                        of the ECB who are entitled to an expatriation allowance of
                                                                        16 % are also entitled to an educational allowance for each
                                                                        dependent child until the establishment of a European school
                                                                        in the Frankfurt area. The applicant has the German nationality
                                                                        and is therefore not entitled to an expatriation allowance.
                                                                        According to the ECB she is for this reason also not entitled to
                                                                        an educational allowance for her oldest child.
                                                                        The applicant claims:
                                                                        —     that this difference in treatment between staff members
Action brought on 27 April 2001 by Astrid Hirsch against                      entitled to an expatriation allowance and those who are
                 the European Central Bank.                                   not entitled to an expatriation allowance, is unjustified
                                                                              and therefore constitutes a breach of the principle of non-
                                                                              discrimination.
                         (Case T-94/01)
                                                                        —     that the administration has failed in its obligation of
                                                                              due care since it has not taken into consideration the
                        (2001/C 186/24)                                       applicant’s situation.
                  (Language of the case: English)
An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 27 April 2001 by Astrid Hirsch, resident in Germany,                 Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Gérard Goget, Pierre
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of                  Huge and Emmanuel Gabolde v Court of Auditors of the
DeBacker Association, Brussels (Belgium).                                                   European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (Case T-95/01)
—    annul the decision of the European Central Bank of                                          (2001/C 186/25)
     25 September 2000 refusing the applicant the benefit of
     the education allowance and therefore the reimbursement
     of the tuition fees that the applicant has to pay for                                 (Language of the case: French)
     the attendance of her son at the Internationale Schule
     Frankfurt and, if necessary, annul the decisions of the
     European Central Bank of 21 December 2000 rejecting                An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
     the applicant’s administrative review and of 20 February           Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
     2000 rejecting the applicant’s grievance;                          on 4 May 2001 by Gérard Goget, residing in Hettange-Grande,
                                                                        France, Pierre Huge, residing in Bonnevoie, Grand Duchy of
—    order the ECB to reimburse the tuition fees amounting to           Luxembourg, and Emmanuel Gabolde, residing in Metz,
     EUR 11 370,00 for the school year 2000-2001 and of                 France, represented by the lawyer André Soulier, with an
     future tuition fees for the future school years, with an           address for service in Luxembourg.
     interest of 8 % per year from 1 of September of each year
     until the due payment, and order the ECB to reimburse              The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:
     the installation fees amounting to EUR 5 922 with an               —     Annul the decision of 22 February 2001 with all the
     interest of 8 % per year from 1 of September 2001;                       consequences in law;
—    order the ECB to pay the costs.                                    —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.