CELEX: C1995/229/47
Language: en
Date: 1995-09-02 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 8 June 1995 by Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-129/95)

2 . 9 . 95              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 229/21
Action brought on 8 June 1995 by Neue Maxhütte                         Action brought on 19 June 1995 by Nicolaos Progoulis
Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH against the                     against the Commission of the European Communities
          Commission of the European Communities                                              ( Case T-131/95 )
                         ( Case T-129/95 )                                                      ( 95/C 229/48 )
                           ( 95/C 229/47
                                                                                      (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
An action against the Commission of the European                       Instance of the European Communities on 19 June 1995 by
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Nicolaos Progoulis, residing in Brussels, represented, by
Instance of the European Communities on 8 June                         Vassilios Akritidis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for
1995 by Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH, Sulzbach-                       service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène
Rosenberg ( FRG ), and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH,                           Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire .
Meitingen-Herbertshofen ( FRG), represented by Dr Rainer
M. Bierwagen, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Elvinger,              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Elvinger &; Dessoy, 31 Rue d'Eich .
                                                                       — annual the decision of the defendant, addressed to the
                                                                           applicant by letter of 20 March 1995 , rejecting his
The applicants claim that the Court should :                               application for regrading in grade Bl , step 2, -with
                                                                           retroactive effect from 1 March 1983 , and for payment
1 . declare void the Commission's decision of 4 April 1995                 of the sum due in consequence of the regrading applied
     in so far as it concerns the applicants;                              for, calculated retroactively from 1 March 1983 ,
                                                                           together with compound interest thereon at the annual
                                                                           rate of 10 % ,
2 . order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The application concerns the Commission's decision of
4 April 1995 addressed to the Federal German Government                The applicant states that he was appointed an official of the
in which it prohibited the Federal State of Bavaria's planned          defendant institution by decision of 9 March 1983 , in grade
contributions to compensation for accumulated losses and               B3 , step 2 . On the following day, he submitted an
in respect of certain investments on the ground that they              application for a review of his classification. He
were State aids which were incompatible with the ECSC                  subsequently lodged a complaint against the decision
Treaty and the Steel Aids Code .                                       rejecting that application, maintaining that the
                                                                       administration had failed to take into acount his period of
The applicants complain that there was an incorrect                    compulsory military service ( 27 months ). In consequence of
statement of the reasons on which the decision was based               that complaint, the defendant reclassified the applicant in
and a breach of Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty. The decision            grade B3 , step 3 .
is based on an erroneous representation and evaluation of
the facts .                                                            On 5 December 1991 , the applicant submitted an
                                                                       application for a review of his classification, on the ground
                                                                       that the professional experience gained by him prior to his
The applicants complain that there was an infringement of              entry into service (the administration had acknowledged
both the applicants ' and the Federal Government's right to            him as having 12 years and nine months' experience ), taken
be heard .
                                                                       together with his period of military service ( 27 months ), was
                                                                       greater ( 15 years ) than that required, according to the
The applicants also claim that the decision incorrectly                wording of the decision of 6 June 1973 on the criteria
applied Article 4 ( c ) of the ECSC Treaty because the planned         applicable to appointment in grade and step on recruitment
payments were in reality not aids . The Commission                     for appointment in grade Bl ( 14 years ). In support of his
misconstrued the notion of aid and incorrectly appraised the           application, the applicant relied on the case of another
Federal State of Bavaria's business conduct. Furthermore,              official whom the defendant had reclassified in a different
the     contested    decision     infringes  the    principle  of      career bracket with retroactive effect from the date of his
proportionality, fails to recognize that in view of the                 appointment. That application was rejected .
applicants' weak market position there is no effect on
competition in the common market, and prevents the                      On 6 May 1994, the applicant submitted a fresh application
 planned privatization measures in an anti-competitive                  for regrading in consequence of the judgment delivered by
 manner .                                                               the Court of First Instance on 29 September 1993 in Joined
                                                                        Cases T-103/92 , T-104/92 snd T-105/92 . That application
                                                                        was rejected by the defendant, who considered that that
                                                                        judgment was not applicable in the applicant's case.