CELEX: C2002/219/53
Language: en
Date: 2002-09-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-205/02: Action brought on 5 July 2002 by Beatriz Salvador Garcia against Commission of the European Communities

C 219/22              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.9.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Action brought on 5 July 2002 by Beatriz Salvador Garcia
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                               (Case T-205/02)
By this action the applicant is contesting the obligation
imposed on the Federal Republic of Germany by the Com-                                         (2002/C 219/53)
mission in Article 3(2) of the contested decision to recover the
sum of EUR 2,71 million from the applicant. The applicant
claims that the Commission’s findings which led to the                                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
adoption of Article 3(2) of the contested decision are in many
regards, both substantive and procedural, incorrect.
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant contends that the Commission’s claim against             European Communities on 5 July 2002 by Beatriz Salvador
the applicant under State aid law is based exclusively on the          Garcia, residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón Garcia
allegation that the applicant acquired certain know-how from           Gallardo Gil-Fournier and Javier Guillem Carrau, lawyers.
SKL Motoren- und Systembautechnik GmbH (‘SKL-M’) under a
reciprocal licensing and cooperation agreement in 1997 for a
purchase price of DEM 6,71 million, when the actual costs              The applicant claims that the Court should:
incurred by SKL-M in developing that know-how exceeded the
sale price. The applicant merely acquired the right to use the
know-how, and the consideration it paid to SKL-M far exceeded          —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of
the actual value of the know-how, so that the factual criterion              27 March 2002 refusing to grant the expatriation allow-
that the applicant must have received favourable treatment                   ance and, in consequence, the other related allowances;
under Article 87(1) EC is not met.
                                                                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant also claims that the Commission has failed to
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
show that the State was accountable for the conduct of SKL-M
in concluding the licensing and cooperation agreement or the
agreement between the applicant and SKL-M’s insolvency
administrator in 2000.                                                 The defendant in the present case contests the refusal of the
                                                                       appointing authority to grant the expatriation allowance and
                                                                       related allowances (Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff
                                                                       Regulations).
The applicant further contends that the applicant did not
receive favourable treatment meeting the criteria for aid              In support of her arguments, the applicant claims:
conferring a competitive advantage. Moreover the Commission
has not shown any actual or potential distortion of competition        —     manifest error of assessment of the facts inasmuch as the
on the markets on which the applicant is active, or any                      contested decision does not consider the work she did for
restriction of trade.                                                        a Delegation of an Autonomous Community in Brussels
                                                                             as ‘work done for another State’ nor the work done by
                                                                             her for the European Parliament as ‘work done for an
                                                                             international organisation’ within the meaning of the
                                                                             Staff Regulations as an exception to the reference period.
Finally the applicant claims that, by one sidedly taking
account of the unsubstantiated allegations of the insolvency           —     breach of the duty to provide reasons.
administrator, the Commission failed to fulfil its duty to assess
the facts impartially and completely.
                                                                       —     breach of the principle of equal treatment, in that the
                                                                             appointing authority treated essentially similar situations
                                                                             differently.