CELEX: C2003/070/48
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-24/03: Action brought on 30 January 2003 by Antonio Aresu against the Commission of the European Communities

C 70/30               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       22.3.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant did not receive a number of the measures listed.
                                                                         The demand for repayment of aid which was not granted thus
                                                                         patently infringes substantive law.
The applicant is a porcelain-manufacturing undertaking based
in Kahla, Thüringen (Thuringia). As the investor which made
the highest offer, it acquired machinery, plant and property
from the receiver responsible for administering the assets
of Kahla Porzellan GmbH. In its contested decision, the
Commission classified a number of measures in favour of
Kahla Porzellan GmbH and the applicant as constituting aid
and declared them to be incompatible with the Common                     Action brought on 30 January 2003 by Antonio Aresu
Market.                                                                    against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                   (Case T-24/03)
By its action, the applicant takes issue in particular with the
order for repayment of the investment subsidy of 2,5 million
                                                                                                  (2003/C 70/48)
DEM, the order for repayment of allegedly ‘de minimis’ aid
payments and that for repayment of grants made for the
implementation of job-creation measures under Para-                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
graph 249h of the Arbeitsförderungsgesetz (Law on the
Promotion of Employment) (‘AFG’). In its action it alleges
infringement of the EC Treaty, breach of fundamental prin-
ciples of Community law and manifest errors of fact and of               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
appraisal.                                                               ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities on 30 January 2003 by Antonio Aresu rep-
                                                                         resented by Sergio Diana, acting as Agent, with an address for
The applicant contends that the order for repayment of                   service in Luxembourg.
the investment subsidy and of the grants paid out under
Paragraph 249h AFG is contrary to the EC Treaty. The
investment subsidy was granted from an approved programme                The applicant claims that the Court should:
and, with regard to measures under Paragraph 249h AFG, the
Commission expressly determined in 1994 that these did not               —     annul the following two decisions:
constitute aid. In both cases, therefore, the rules applicable to
existing aid applied. In its decision, however, the Commission                 (a)   the express decision of the appointing authority
went beyond an examination of whether the particular con-                            of 29 August 2002 recorded in the note from
ditions of the programmes had been complied with and                                 Mr T. Lennon D(2002)687 of 2 September 2002,
retroactively applied more stringent conditions to those pro-                        received on 4 September 2002, announcing the
grammes than were contained in the programmes or in the                              rejection of the applicant’s application for vacant
conditions of approval which the Commission had imposed.                             post COM/059/02 and the awarding of that post to
The Commission is thereby in breach of Articles 87 EC and 88                         Mr M. Scannell;
EC and in infringement of the principle of legal certainty.
                                                                               (b) the implied decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                                     17 January 2003 rejecting the complaint made by
The applicant argues further that the Commission has infringed                       the applicant on 17 September 2002 against that
the fundamental principle of the protection of legitimate                            decision.
expectations by failing to take account of the fact that the
publication by the Commission itself in the Official Journal of          —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
the EC of its formal approval of the programme for guarantee-
ing investment and the rules in Paragraph 249h AFG gives no
indication of the more stringent restrictions which it has
applied within the context of the contested decision. The                Pleas in law and main arguments
applicant was thus entitled to rely on the expectation that both
programmes would be applied in the form as published and
approved by the Commission. The demand for repayment,                    The applicant in this case contests the rejection of his
which runs counter to this expectation, is patently unlawful.            application for a post as head of unit in the Health and
                                                                         Consumer Protection Directorate-General.
The applicant submits further that the Commission’s findings
contain fundamental errors of fact and a number of manifest              In support of his claims the applicant submits that the
errors of appraisal. First, there is an error of appraisal in the        contested decisions stated no grounds, in breach of the second
                                                                         paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
classification of the applicant as an undertaking in difficulty.
The demand for repayment of the ‘de minimis’ aid payments
also contains manifest and significant errors as to the facts.