CELEX: C2006/237/16
Language: en
Date: 2006-09-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-198/06: Action brought on 21 July 2006 — Rathscheck Schiefer und Dach-Systeme and Others v Commission

30.9.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 237/8
            
         Action brought on 21 July 2006 — Rathscheck Schiefer und Dach-Systeme and Others v Commission
   (Case T-198/06)
   (2006/C 237/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties
   
      Applicants: Rathscheck Schiefer und Dach-Systeme KG (Mayen, Germany), Nikolaus Theis Nachf. Böger GmbH (Bundenbach, Germany) and I.B. Rathscheck Söhne KG Moselschiefer-Bergwerke (Mayen, Germany) (represented by: T. Risse, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   Declare invalid Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 8 March 2006 on Germany's State aid No C 31/2004 (ex NN 53/2004) to Magog Schiefergruben GmbH & Co. KG.
   Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants contest Article 1 of Commission Decision C (2006) 641 final of 8 March 2006, by which the Commission decided that the State aid awarded by Germany to Schiefergruben Magog GmbH & Co. KG, a competitor of the applicants, is compatible in part with the common market in accordance with Article 87(3)(c) EC.
   The applicants took part in the Commission's formal verification procedure.
   In support of their claim, the applicants allege infringement of Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2001 L 10, p. 33) in the version amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 364/2004 of 25 February 2004 (OJ 2004 L 63, p. 22).
   In the applicants' view, there is eligibility for aid under Articles 5a and 5b of Regulation No 70/2001 only if the new production process, the implementation of which was assisted by the aid, is a precompetitive development. They submit that that is not the case in the present situation, since the prototype for which aid was granted is not innovative.
   Furthermore, the applicants submit in support of their claim that there is here no eligibility for aid under Article 4 of Regulation No 70/2001. There is eligibility only where the production process receiving aid is significantly changed from the previous production process. That precondition is not met in this case since the working procedure in the production process has remained the same.