CELEX: C2002/219/50
Language: en
Date: 2002-09-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-187/02: Action brought on 17 June 2002 by Rüdiger Wienberg (Rechtsanwalt), acting as liquidator in the liquidation of Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und Veredlung against the Commission of the European Communities

C 219/20              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        14.9.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         group said to comprise Erba Lautex GmbH in liquidation
                                                                        and Neue Erba Lautex GmbH aid amounting in total to
                                                                        EUR 7,834 million.
The applicant objects to the Commission’s decision to refuse
to appoint him to the higher grade in the category in
accordance with Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                        The applicant submits that the Commission’s finding that
                                                                        repayment of the capital increase constituted aid was incorrect
In support of his arguments, the applicant claims that the              and thus contravened Article 87(1) EC. The obligation on the
Commission relied on erroneous information and on contra-               State-owned vendor under the contractual clause did not
dictory arguments. By refusing to reclassify the applicant              amount to aid. Moreover, the Commission did not substantiate
despite the large number of diplomas he holds and the                   its supposition as to a 100 % level of aid intensity in connection
experience he possesses, the Commission has committed a                 with a capital increase in favour of Erba Lautex GmbH and
manifest error of assessment. Furthermore, the Commission               thus contravened Article 253 EC.
did not give valid reasons for its decision, thus infringing
Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                        The applicant further submits that there is no legal basis for
                                                                        the obligation on Erba Lautex GmbH in respect of repayment
                                                                        of rescue and restructuring aid in favour of Neue Erba Lautex
                                                                        GmbH. The Commission decision is based on the erroneous
                                                                        finding that Neue Erba Lautex GmbH was not a successor
                                                                        undertaking under the terms of the exception provided for in
                                                                        footnote 10 of the Guidelines (1).
Action brought on 17 June 2002 by Rüdiger Wienberg
(Rechtsanwalt), acting as liquidator in the liquidation of
Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und Veredlung against the
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        The applicant maintains that the Commission’s finding that
                                                                        Erba Lautex GmbH and Neue Erba Lautex GmbH were to be
                        (Case T-187/02)                                 deemed to constitute a group was erroneous since Neue Erba
                                                                        Lautex GmbH is controlled not by Erba Lautex GmbH but by
                                                                        the liquidator. The findings that no aid has hitherto been
                        (2002/C 219/50)                                 claimed back from Erba Lautex GmbH and that the Com-
                                                                        mission decision of 20 July 1999 has thus not been implement-
                  (Language of the Case: German)                        ed are also erroneous. In consequence of the erroneous
                                                                        assumptions made by the Commission the contested decision
                                                                        was already unlawful and liable to be set aside for breach of
                                                                        Article 87(3)(c) EC in conjunction with the Guidelines.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 17 June
2002 by Rüdiger Wienberg (Rechtsanwalt), acting as liquidator           The applicant submits, in the alternative, that the Commission
in the liquidation of Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und Vered-               was incorrect in its finding that the applicant and Erba Lautex
lung, Dresden, (Germany), represented by Professor U. Ehricke,          GmbH constituted a unit or group of undertakings and that
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                              therefore the ability to approve rescue and restructuring aid
                                                                        could only be assessed in favour of the group, that the
                                                                        Deggendorf doctrine was to be applied and the aid was to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             be claimed back from both members of the group. The
                                                                        Commission’s decision is said to be based on the erroneous
—     Annul the Commission Decision (C(2002)944 fin) of                 finding that the applicant’s case did not constitute a residual
      12 March 2002 concerning State aid by the Federal                 arrangement under the terms of the exception provided for in
      Republic in favour of Neue Erba Lautex Gmbh and Erba              footnote 10 of the Guidelines. By not applying that exceptional
      Lautex GmbH in liquidation;                                       provision the Commission infringed the principle of equal
                                                                        treatment and provided no objective reason for the unequal
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.                             treatment.
                                                                        (1 ) Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              firms in difficulty (OJ 1999 C 288, p. 2).
In the contested decision the Commission imposed on the
Federal Republic of Germany the obligation to reclaim from a