CELEX: C2000/163/11
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-57/00 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2000 by Freistaat Sachsen against the judgment delivered on 15 December 1999 by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96 between Freistaat Sachsen, Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH, of the one part, and the Commission of the European Communities of the other part

10.6.2000                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 163/7
— Breach of Article 7 of Directive 85/374/EEC:                           The appellant claims that the Court should:
     — By making the defence of compliance with mandatory
          regulations (Article 7(d) of the Directive) subject to an      1. Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
          obligation to monitor, the French law transposing the              European Communities in Joined Cases T-132/96 and
          Directive makes that defence subject to a condition not            T-143/96 Freistaat Sachsen, Volkswagen AG and Volkswa-
          laid down by the Directive.                                        gen Sachsen GmbH v Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities (1);
     — Similarly, in providing that a producer may not rely on
          the defence of the state of technical knowledge if, in         2. Annul Article 2 of Commission Decision 96/666/EC of
          the event of a defect which became apparent within a               26 June 1996 concerning aid granted by Germany to the
          certain time of the product’s being put on the market,             Volkswagen Group for works in Mosel and Chemnitz (OJ
          he did not take steps to prevent harmful consequences,             1996 L 308, p. 46);
          the second paragraph of Article 1386-12 of the French
          Civil Code inserts an additional condition in Article
          7(e) of the Directive for which that Directive makes no
          provision.                                                     3. Order the Commission to pay the costs.
(1) JORF of 21.5.1998.
(2) Council Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations
    and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning        Pleas in law and main arguments
    liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, of 7. 8.1985,
    p. 29).
                                                                         — Defective interpretation of Article 87(2)(c) EC: Contrary to
                                                                             the view expressed in the contested judgment, the term
                                                                             ‘division of Germany’ refers not only to the physical and
                                                                             transport/technical establishment of the frontier, but also
                                                                             to the whole of the economic consequences of the socialist
                                                                             system. The appellants argue that that is readily apparent
                                                                             from the fact that, in 1992 and 1997, when the immediate
                                                                             physical and transport/technical consequences of the bor-
                                                                             der between the two German States (interruption of
                                                                             transport links etc.) were already overcome, the signatory
                                                                             States of the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties left Article
                                                                             92(2)(c) of the EC Treaty (old version) unchanged. In the
Appeal brought on 23 February 2000 by Freistaat Sachsen                      applicants’ submission, that decision of the Treaty makers
against the judgment delivered on 15 December 1999 by                        means that Article 87(2)(c) EC is intended to support State
the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the                             promotion of the difficult reconstruction of economically
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                       viable structures in East Germany by means of financial
Joined Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96 between Freistaat                         incentives. Any other interpretation would imply that the
Sachsen, Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen                                Treaty makers deliberately maintained in force a provision
GmbH, of the one part, and the Commission of the                             that had become devoid of purpose.
            European Communities of the other part
                           (Case C-57/00 P)                                  In the practice of the Commission, Article 87(2)(c) EC
                                                                             has already been interpreted as a provision designed to
                                                                             overcome the economic consequences of the division of
                           (2000/C 163/11)                                   Germany into different economic zones as part of the
                                                                             postwar settlement, as is apparent from the Commission’s
                                                                             decision of 11 December 1964 concerning aids designed
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 December                      to facilitate the integration of the Saarland into the
1999 by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the                     economy of the Federal Republic of Germany (Bulletin of
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined                the European Economic Community No 2-1965, p. 33).
Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96 between Freistaat Sachsen,
Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH, of the one
part, and the Commission of the European Communities, of                     The Court of First Instance paid no attention at all to the
the other part, was brought before the Court of Justice of the               fact that, in the system of the EC Treaty, the overcoming
European Communities on 23 February 2000 by Freistaat                        of the disadvantages caused by the division of Germany in
Sachsen, represented by Freshfields Deringer, Rechtsanwälte,                 the transport field is the subject-matter of a special
Charlottenstrasse 65, D-10117 Berlin, with an address for                    provision in Title V of the Treaty (Transport), namely the
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 398                     division clause of Article 78, which was also left unaltered
Route d’Esch, L-1471 Luxembourg.                                             by the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties.
 ---pagebreak--- C 163/8                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.6.2000
— Defective application of Article 253 EC: The assumption               Appeal brought on 23 February 2000 by Volkswagen AG
    that sufficient reasons are stated for the contested Com-           and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH against the judgment
    mission decision is based on a misrepresentation of the             delivered on 15 December 1999 by the Second Chamber
    content of that decision by the Court of First Instance.            (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                        the European Communities in Joined Cases T-132/96 and
                                                                        T-143/96 between Freistaat Sachsen, Volkswagen AG and
— Infringement of Article 87(3)(b) EC: The applicants submit            Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH, of the one part, and the
    that neither the wording nor the sense and purpose of               Commission of the European Communities of the other
    Article 87(3)(b) EC justify the conclusion by the Court of                                         part
    First Instance that the collapse of the former nationalised
    economy of the GDR in the course of reunification did not
    lead to a ‘serious disturbance in the economy’ of Germany.                                  (Case C-61/00 P)
    In view of the fact that German reunification necessitates
    the economic reconstruction of almost a third of German
    territory, the applicants maintain that it is unjustifiable to                              (2000/C 163/12)
    exclude that serious economic disturbance, the overcoming
    of which requires extraordinary financial sacrifices from
    the whole Federal Republic, from the scope of Article
    87(3)(b) EC.                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 December
                                                                        1999 by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
— Infringement of Articles 87(3) and 88 EC: The applicants              Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96 (1) between Freistaat Sachsen,
    submit that the contested judgment infringes Articles 87            Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH, of the one
    and 88 EC by holding that the aid granted to the VW                 part, and the Commission of the European Communities, of
    group required prior notification and should have been              the other part, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
    comprehensively examined by the Commission in accord-               European Communities on 23 February 2000 by Volkswagen
    ance with Article 87 EC. They maintain that that is legally         AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH, represented by Michael
    incorrect, since the aid formed part of an approved aid             Schütte, Rechtsanwalt, Rue de la Loi 99-101, B-1040 Brussels,
    programme. The Court of First Instance misunderstood                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
    the legal significance of the reservation in the Commission         Bonn & Schmidt, Rechtsanwalte, 7 Val Ste Croix, L-1371
    decision approving the aid programme that the special               Luxembourg.
    rules for particular sectors of industry had to be complied
    with, and wrongly assumed that approval of the aid
    programme did not extend to the motor vehicle industry.             The appellants claim that the Court should:
    That reservation applied only to rules in force. The
    Community Framework on State Aid to the Motor Vehicle
    Industry had expired on 31 December. In respect of the              — set aside the contested judgment in its entirety;
    Federal Republic of Germany, the Commission proposal
    to extend the framework had not been approved on
    22 March 1991, the date on which the disputed aids were             — uphold the claims at first instance, in so far as they seek:
    granted. It was not until April 1991, after the grant of the
    aid, that the Federal Government agreed to the extension
    of the framework. Therefore, the duty to give individual                1. annulment of Article 2 of Commission Decision K (96)
    notification, which had its legal basis only in the (expired)               1844 endg. of 26 June 1996, save for the first indent
    framework, could not apply to aid to the motor vehicle                      thereof, referring to special write-offs with a nominal
    industry from approved aid programmes. The aid fell                         value of DEM 51.67 million; and in respect of the first
    under the rules approved by the Commission for aid                          indent, referring to special write-offs with a nominal
    programmes, and in particular under the Joint Task                          value of DEM 51.67 million, declare the substance of
    between the Federal Government and the Länder of                            the dispute exhausted in that respect;
    improving the regional economic structure (Nineteenth
    Outline Plan) and the German law on investment allow-
    ances (Investitionszulagengesetz). Since the aid fell under             2. annulment of Article 3(2) of Commission Decision K
    approved programmes, it was not subject to comprehen-                       (96) 1844 endg. of 26 June 1996 in so far as the
    sive examination in accordance with Article 87 EC, but                      combined effective aid intensity, expressed in gross
    only to limited examination as existing aid.                                grant equivalent, is limited to 22.3 % for Mosel II and
                                                                                20.8 % for Chemnitz II;
                                                                            3. annulment of Article 1 of Commission Decision K (96)
(1) OJ 2000 C 79, p. 22.                                                        1844 endg. of 26 June 1996 in so far as the amount
                                                                                of investment grants declared compatible with the
                                                                                common market is limited to DEM 418.7 million.
                                                                        — Order the Commission to pay the costs.