CELEX: C1999/226/71
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-126/99: Action brought on 25 May 1999 by Graphischer Maschinenbau GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

C 226/40               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.8.1999
— therefore order the EAEC, represented by the Commission               2. pursuant to Article 176 of the EC Treaty (Article 233 of
    of the European Communities, to pay to the applicant,                    the Amsterdam Treaty), require the Commission to comply
    Autosalone Ispra dei F.lli Rossi s.n.c., the sum of                      with the Court’s judgment by declaring a further DM 4.875
    LIT 1 245 000 000, together with monetary revaluation                    million of the planned aid compatible with the common
    and interest from the due date until actual payment, or                  market;
    such other sum as may be ordered by the court;
                                                                        3. order the Commission to pay the costs.
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant’s complaint concerns the damage caused by                 The applicant is a Berlin (Spandau)-based manufacturer of
flooding on it property as a result of the overflowing of a             printing machines and subsidiary of Koenig & Bauer AG. In
stretch of drain which it was the responsibility of the EAEC            cooperation with other group companies, i produces individual
                                                                        assemblies for the various production plants in the group.
Joint Research Centre (JRC) to manage and maintain.
                                                                        Severe economic problems in 1996 threatened the company
                                                                        with closure in 1997, but this was averted by aid from the
                                                                        Land Berlin and a restructuring plan.
According to the applicant, the JRC has the authority and the
duty to oversee the structures connected with the operation of
the whole Centre, including the drain in question. Conse-
quently, the JRC has acted negligently, imprudently and                 In the contested decision, the Commission held that the
incompetently in not anticipating the incident.                         State aid planned for the plaintiff of DM 9.31 million was
                                                                        compatible with the common market only as to DM
                                                                        4.435 million thereof, and that the excess over that figure
                                                                        could not be granted.
                                                                        The applicant challenges the prohibition of the additional
                                                                        amount, arguing that it relates to development costs which in
                                                                        the Commission’s view had been incurred before notification
                                                                        in January 1998 and allegedly benefited not the applicant but
                                                                        its parent company.
Action brought on 25 May 1999 by Graphischer Maschi-
nenbau GmbH against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                  The applicant maintains that the disallowed development costs
                                                                        are a central component of the restructuring plan, and that aid
                         (Case T-126/99)                                of that amount is necessary for the restructuring.
                         (1999/C 226/71)                                It argues that the Commission has:
                                                                        — wrongly based its decision on the timing of a part of the
                  (Language of the case: German)                             development costs;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               — put an inappropriate time-limit on the development costs;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 May 1999 by Graphischei
Maschinenbau, whose registered office is in Berlin, represented         — insufficiently examined the facts;
by Albrecht Bach Rechtsanwalt, Stuttgart, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong & Dupong,
4-6 Rue de la Boucherie.                                                — denied the applicant a proper hearing;
                                                                        — insufficiently stated its reasons for the contested decision;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  and
1. pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 174 of the EC             — infringed Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty in the exercise
    Treaty (Article 230(4) of the Amsterdam Treaty), annul the               of its powers.
    second sentence of Article 1 of Commission Decision
    K(1999) 327 endg. of 3 February 1999, prohibiting the
    planned grant of state aid by the Federal Republic of
    Germany (No C 54/98) to Graphischer Maschinenbau.
    Berlin. in so far as it exceeded DM 4.435 million;