CELEX: C1999/121/41
Language: en
Date: 1999-05-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-37/99: Action brought on 12 February 1999 by Dr Ugo Miranda against Commission of the European Communities

C 121/18               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       1.5.1999
Action brought on 8 January 1999 by Keller SpA in                         In support of their claims, the applicants, which, following a
special administration and Keller Meccanica SpA in special                declaration of insolvency, are subject to special administration,
administration against the Commission of the European                     advance the following pleas:
                          Community
                                                                          — distortion of the facts and consequent misapplication of
                                                                              Article 92 in the evaluation of the loans on favourable
                         (Case T-35/99)                                       terms mentioned above, as regards in particular the
                                                                              inapplicability of Regional Law No 25/1993 to undertak-
                                                                              ings subject to special administration, the exclusive applica-
                        (1999/C 121/40)                                       bility of the aid regime provided for in Regional Law
                                                                              No 66/1976 to undertakings with fixed investments not
                                                                              exceeding ITL 7 000 million and a maximum of 100
                                                                              employees and the fact that the regime approved did not
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                            provide for machinery for adjustment of the aid par-
                                                                              ameters, in respect of which the amendments made to the
                                                                              implementing Directives should have been notified to the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     Commission,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 8
February 1999 by Keller SpA in special administration and                 — incorrect application of the Community guidelines regard-
Keller Meccanica SpA in special administration, represented by                ing restructuring aid, in that the contested decision stated
Prof. Diego Corapi, Vittorio Cappuccilli and Massimo Merola,                  that the plan for reorganisation of the applicant companies
of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                 could not be regarded as a genuine restructuring plan and
the chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 rue Albert Premier.                          that the intervention in question did not include measures
                                                                              designed to prevent improper distortions of competition,
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:             — incorrect calculation of interest for restructuring purposes.
— annul the contested decision,
— in the alternative, declare null and void the part of the
    contested decision concerning calculation of the interest
    payable on the sums to be recovered,
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  Action brought on 12 February 1999 by Dr Ugo Miranda
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                   (Case T-37/99)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                                  (1999/C 121/41)
The applicant companies, forming part of the Keller Group,
specialising in the production of rolling stock and the provision
of services relating to the transport sector and distribution,                               (Language of the case: Italian)
take exception to the defendant’s decision of 1 July 1998,
adopted on conclusion of a procedure initiated pursuant to                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty, according to which:                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
                                                                          12 February 1999 by Dr Ugo Miranda, represented by Luca G.
— the conditions under which loans on favourable terms                    Radicati di Brozolo, of the Milan Bar, with an address for
    were granted in the sum of ITL 33 839 million to Keller               service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Alex Schmidt, 7 Val
    SpA and of ITL 6 500 million to Keller Meccanica SpA do               Ste Croix.
    not correspond to those laid down for regional aid by
    Regional Law No 25/1993 of the Sicilian Region and                    The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
    Regional Law No 66/1976 of the Sardinia Region, both
    of which provide for an aid scheme approved by the
    Commission,                                                           — annul the contested decision,
                                                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
— the aid granted in the form of lower interest rates, equal to
    ITL 4 288 million, in favour of Keller SpA likewise does
    not comply with the Community guidelines on State                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    aid for the rescue and restructuring of undertakings in
    difficulties and could not benefit from any of the dero-
    gations provided for in Article 92(2) and (3) of the EC               The applicant, a retired official in receipt of a pension, is
    Treaty and mentioned in Article 51(2) and (3) of the                  challenging the Commission decision regarding recovery of
    EEA Agreement and are therefore incompatible with the                 the sums paid in December 1995 by way of resettlement
    common market.                                                        allowance.
 ---pagebreak--- 1.5.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 121/19
In its decision, the defendant contends that, in the event, there         T. Port GmbH & Co. KG was represented by Gert Meier,
was no resettlement within the meaning of Article 6 of                    Rechtsanwalt, 10 Jakodenstraße, Cologne (Federal Republic of
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations since Mr Miranda, after                Germany).
moving to Rome in November 1995, subsequently changed
his place of residence to Brussels in February 1996.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant considers that he scrupulously observed the pro-
visions governing the resettlement allowance and that he acted
with the utmost good faith and openness. He considers that the            1. order the defendant to compensate the applicant for its
Commission erred in law in interpreting Article 6 of Annex VII                loss suffered as a result of the fact that:
to the Staff Regulations and also failed to meet its obligation to
give a full and correct statement of the reasons for its decision             a) the competent authority caused the quantity provision-
and that, in any event it infringed his legitimate expectations.                   ally approved for the applicant to be reduced by
                                                                                   multiplying that quantity by the adjustment coefficient,
He claims that he actually moved his residence, as is confirmed
                                                                                   and;
inter alia by the fact that he served a notice evicting his tenants
from his apartment in Rome and by the expenditure incurred
in moving in. According to the applicant, the period for which                b) reduced the quantity for which the applicant had
he stayed at the place to which be moved must be deemed                            applied by the amounts imported in 1994 into Finland,
irrelevant, inter alia for the purpose of assessing whether the                    Austria and Sweden, and;
removal actually took place. On this point, he draws attention
to the conflict between the rules on the resettlement allowance               c) reduced that quantity by the amount judicially deter-
at issue here and the rules on the installation allowance                          mined;
provided for in Article 5(1) and (2) of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations.
                                                                          2. order the defendant to make good that reduction by
                                                                              allocation to it corresponding additional licences in the
                                                                              future (compensation in kind);
Action brought on 19 February 1999 by T. Port GmbH                        3. order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
& Co. KG against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                          (Case T-52/99)
                         (1999/C 121/42)                                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                   (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                similar to those in Cases T-18/99 (Cordis obst und Gemüse
European Communities on 19 February 1999 by T. Port                       Großhandel GmbH v. Commission) and T-30/99 (Bocchi Food
GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg (Federal Republic of Germany).                     Trade International v. Commission).