CELEX: C2000/355/79
Language: en
Date: 2000-12-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-317/00: Action brought on 10 October 2000 by AgipPetroli SpA against Commission of the European Communities

9.12.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 355/37
—     Infringement of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff               —     failure to fulfil the duty to have regard for the welfare of
      Regulations. The applicant was entitled to the daily                     officials;
      subsistence allowance laid down by that provision, since
      she was required to change her place of residence to               —     infringement of Community rules on free movement for
      Luxembourg for the sole purpose of being able to carry                   workers;
      out the work for which she was employed, whereas the
      centre of her interests remained in Portugal.                      —     failure to fulfil the obligation to provide reasons.
                                                                         Action brought on 10 October 2000 by AgipPetroli SpA
Action brought on 29 September 2000 by Sjoerd Feenstra                       against Commission of the European Communities
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                   (Case T-317/00)
                         (Case T-313/00)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 355/79)
                         (2000/C 355/78)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               European Communities on 10 October 2000 by AgipPetroli
European Communities on 29 September 2000 by Sjoerd                      SpA, represented by Mario Siragusa of the Rome Bar, Matteo
Feenstra, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vander-           Beretta, of the Bergamo Bar, Francesca Maria Moretti, of the
sanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar.                              Venice Bar, and Eduardo De Simone, of the Naples Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                         Elvinger Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision taken by the appointing authority on
      27 September 1999 grading the applicant in Grade A 7,              —     annul the contested decision in whole or in part in so far
      step 3;                                                                  as it concerns the applicant;
—     order the defendant to pay damages provisionally asses-            —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
      sed, ex aequo et bono, at 1 euro;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         On 9 February 2000, the European Commission adopted a
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          decision whereby it declared the acquisition of Elf Aquitaine
                                                                         S.A. by Totalfina compatible with the common market and
                                                                         with the Agreement on the European Economic Area. That
The applicant, who was a successful candidate in competition             decision was subject to the compliance by Totalfina with a
COM/A/764, contests the appointing authority’s decision to               number of undertakings, including the undertaking to sell
grade him, on establishment, at Grade A 7, step 3.                       70 petrol stations located on the French motorway network,
                                                                         specifically set out in a table appended to the decision.
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
                                                                         The present case has been brought against the decision of the
—     manifest error of assessment;                                      Commission of 13 September 2000 (SG (2000) D/106729)
                                                                         rejecting the plan submitted by Totalfina S.A., with the purpose
                                                                         of implementing the abovementioned decision of 9 February
—     infringement of Articles 31(2) and 32 of the Staff                 2000 Totalfina/Elf (COMP/M. 1628). That decision rejected
      Regulations;                                                       the plan put forward on account of the fact that two
                                                                         prospective purchasers, one of which was the applicant itself,
—     breach of the principle of non-discrimination;                     were not in a position to compete effectively against Totalfina.
 ---pagebreak--- C 355/38               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.12.2000
In support of its arguments, the applicant puts forward the              Pleas in law and main arguments
following pleas in law:
—     Inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons.
                                                                         The contested decision of the Commission concerns a number
                                                                         of alleged cases of aid received by various undertakings in
—     Misuse of powers and infringement of Council Regulation
                                                                         connection with the establishment and operation of a CD
      (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control
                                                                         factory in Albrechts, Thuringia. In the decision the Com-
      of concentrations between undertakings (1).
                                                                         mission finds that part of that aid was misused. It states that
                                                                         that wrong use constitutes an abuse of aid, which is therefore
The applicants point out in that regard that the contested               incompatible with the EC Treaty. In Article 2 of the contested
decision relies on a number of statements of principle and of            decision the Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to recover
fact which are arbitrary, or in any event unfounded. In                  the aid from more precisely specified recipients.
particular, the defendant appears to have confused the appli-
cation of the rules of competition with structural intervention
on the basis of economic policy which fall beyond its powers,
thus losing sight of the fact that the recent significant oil price      The applicant considers that it is directly and immediately
rises are in fact the result of factors altogether beyond the            concerned by the decision. On the basis of the German rules
control of undertakings.                                                 of national law, the contested decision is to be implemented
                                                                         by the applicant, in so far as undertakings established in
                                                                         Thuringia are concerned. Furthermore, the contested decision
(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1.                                                 largely concerns alleged aid distributed by the Thuringian
                                                                         authorities. Moreover, the order to recover the aid relates to
                                                                         undertakings which are indirectly owned by the applicant.
                                                                         The applicant complains that the Commission partly incor-
                                                                         rectly classified the measures in question as State aid. Moreover,
                                                                         the undertakings established in Thuringia were incorrectly
Action brought on 10 October 2000 by Freistaat Thüring-                  identified as recipients of aid for the purposes of recovery.
en against the Commission of the European Communities                    CDA Datenträger Albrechts GmbH received no benefit from
                                                                         State resources. The applicant’s other undertakings were also
                          (Case T-318/00)                                ultimately deprived of the finance as a result of fraudulent
                                                                         dealings. This applies to Pilz & Robotron GmbH & Co.
                                                                         Beteiligungs KG, Pilz Albrechts GmbH, CDA Compact Disc
                         (2000/C 355/80)                                 Albrechts GmbH and hence finally also Logistik Center
                                                                         Albrechts GmbH. Consequently, the Commission could extend
                                                                         the instruction to recover the aid only to those undertakings
                   (Language of the case: German)                        which actually received a benefit.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               In this context the applicant puts forward the following pleas
European Communities on 10 October 2000 by Freistaat                     in law in particular:
Thüringen (State of Thuringia), represented by Dr Michael
Schütte, Rechtsanwalt, of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer,
Brussels.                                                                —     Breach of the principle of the right to a fair hearing
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     Errors in establishing the facts
—     annul the contested decision;
      in the alternative:                                                —     Defective statement of reasons
      —    annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision in so far
           as aid to Pilz & Robotron GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs             —     Infringement of the requirement of precision and the
           KG and Pilz Albrechts GmbH is thereby declared                      principle of proportionality
           incompatible with the common market;
      —    annul Articles 1(2) and 2(3) of the contested                 —     Unlawfulness of the instruction to recover the aid
           decision;
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                —     Manifestly incorrect assessment of the individual elements
      pay the costs.                                                           of aid