CELEX: C2003/044/76
Language: en
Date: 2003-02-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-388/02: Action brought on 23 December 2002 by Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European Communities

C 44/40               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.2.2003
Action brought on 19 December 2002 by Marta Andreas-                      —     Breach of Article 50 of the Staff Regulations by using the
en against the Commission of the European Communities                           applicant’s transfer as a punitive measure, and
                                                                          —     Breach of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations through the
                        (Case T-385/02)                                         adoption of a disproportionate and unnecessary measure,
                                                                                resulting in the applicant’s appointment to a post that is
                                                                                not suited to her category and grade.
                        (2003/C 44/75)
                  (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Action brought on 23 December 2002 by Kronoply
European Communities on 19 December 2002 by Marta                         GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG against
Andreasen, Brussels, Belgium, represented by Ian S. Forrester,                   the Commission of the European Communities
QC.
                                                                                                  (Case T-388/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                   (2003/C 44/76)
—     annul the implied decision of the Commission rejecting
      the applicant’s appeal against her removal from the post                               (Language of the case: German)
      of Accounting Officer
—     annul the implied decision of the Commission rejecting
      the applicant’s appeal against her transfer to the post of
      Principal Adviser                                                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 23 December 2002 by Kronoply
—     award her pecuniary damages for an amount of money                  GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG, Heiligengra-
      to be fixed by the Court, plus interest at 5 % or at such           be, Germany, represented by R. Nierer, Rechtsanwalt.
      other rate as may be fixed by the Court
—     award her the costs of the present action.                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2002 (State
                                                                                Aid No N 240/2002) not to raise any objection to the
                                                                                Federal Republic of Germany granting State aid to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Zellstoff Stendal GmbH;
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
The purpose of the present action is to challenge the Decision
to remove the applicant from office as Accounting Officer and
Bugdet Execution Director in Directorate General Budget and
to transfer her to the position of principal Adviser in Director-
ate General Personnel and Administration.                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of her conclusions, the applicant submits:                     The applicants produce timber-based materials from freshly
                                                                          felled pine, including [...] oriented structural boards. Their
                                                                          action is brought against the Commission’s decision to raise
—     Breach of the principle of good administration. Failure to          no objection to the granting of a non-repayable subsidy
      state reasons for the removal in question, and violation            of EUR 109,161 million and an investment allowance of
      of the Commission’s duty of adequate reasoning for                  EUR 165,515 million to Zellstoff Stendal GmbH for the
      adoption of a decision having legal effect.                         construction of a cellulose factory and the establishment of a
 ---pagebreak--- 22.2.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 44/41
wood procurement undertaking and a logistics undertaking in               Action brought on 24 December 2002 by Sergio Sandini
Arneburg bei Stendal in the Land Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany,                 against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
and also against the provision of an 80 % surety for a loan of
EUR 464,550 million.
                                                                                                  (Case T-389/02)
The applicants claim that the Commission did not fully adhere
to the guidelines and general regulations. It failed to examine                                    (2003/C 44/77)
the sectoral effects of the plans on wood as a resource
and adopted too wide a procurement radius. That wide
procurement radius leads in their submission to higher costs                                 (Language of the case: French)
and thus the unprofitability of the undertaking, whereas, if a
smaller procurement radius were used, forest resources would
not be sufficient to supply all wood-processing undertakings
in the region.
                                                                          An action against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
The Commission failed to take account of the fact that the aid            of the European Communities on 24 December 2002 by
beneficiary’s own share was less than the necessary 25 %.                 Sergio Sandini, residing in Ehlange (Luxembourg), represented
                                                                          by Juan Ramon Iturriagagoitia and Karine Delvolvé, lawyers.
The Commission calculated the number of indirectly created
jobs at too high a figure, so that, instead of the factor of 1,5, a       The applicant claims that the Court should:
factor of 1,25 should have been used. The maximum permiss-
ible intensity of aid was therefore only 26,25 %.
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the Court of Justice given on
                                                                                24 September 2002 and concerning Complaint 2/02-
                                                                                R(e) lodged by the applicant on 25 January 2002 against
In addition, the aid proportion of a State guarantee for a loan                 the decision of 25 October 2001;
was calculated too low, so that, on a correct calculation, there
was an aid intensity of 33,31 %, which even exceeded the
maximum aid intensity approved by the Commission of                       —     order the defendant to pay the applicant, as compensation
31,5 %.                                                                         for the damage that he has suffered and will in future
                                                                                suffer, the sum of EUR 350 000, subject to all necessary
                                                                                reservations, together with default interest at the rate of
                                                                                10 % per annum from 7 October 1999 until the date of
Council Regulation (EC) No 659/99 of 22 March 1999 laying
                                                                                payment;
down detailed rules for the application of Article 88 EC ( 1) was
infringed, since no formal investigation procedure was opened,
although the Commission had cause for concern. The appli-                 —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
cants were thereby hindered in the exercise of their procedural
rights and limited in their right to a hearing.
Since the regional aid guidelines and the provisions of the               Pleas in law and main arguments
multisectoral regional aid framework were not complied with,
none of the exceptions in Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the EC
Treaty can apply.
                                                                          The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, challenges
                                                                          that institution’s refusal to compensate him for the damage
                                                                          suffered as a result of his occupational disease, which has
The Commission further infringed Article 2, Article 3(1)(i),              already been recognised by decision of the appointing auth-
Article 6, and the third indent of Article 174(1) of the EC               ority of 31 May 2001, adopted under Article 73 of the Staff
Treaty, as it failed to take account of the environmental impact          Regulations, and on the basis of which a sum was paid to him.
when making its decisions. In the applicants’ submission, the
plans being supported would lead to overfelling in order to
meet requirements.
                                                                          The pleas relied on in support of this application are similar to
                                                                          those in Case T 255/02 H v Court of Justice (OJ C 274 of
( 1) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.                                                  9.11.2002, p. 26).