CELEX: C2001/259/23
Language: en
Date: 2001-09-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-138/01: Action brought on 19 June 2001 by F against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities

15.9.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 259/13
Zeitzer Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte GmbH, LandTechnik                   Action brought on 19 June 2001 by F against the Court of
Schlüter GmbH, ILKA MAFA Kältetechnik GmbH, SKL Motore-                           Auditors of the European Communities
n- und Systembautechnik GmbH, SKL Spezialapparatebau
GmbH, Magdeburger Eisengießerei GmbH, Saxonia Edelmetal-
le GmbH and Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH) (State aid                                              (Case T-138/01)
No C 41/99 (EXN49/95) Germany) in so far as it affects
ZEMAG (Zeitzer Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte) GmbH.
                                                                                              (2001/C 259/23)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                         (Language of the case: French)
By the contested decision, the Commission required Germany
to demand repayment of aid totalling DEM 34 978 million               An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
from Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH and its subsidiary               Community was brought before the Court of First Instance of
companies. A total sum of DEM 6 496 271 was filed against             the European Communities on 19 June 2001 by F, domiciled
ZEMAG GmbH in the context of that company’s insolvency                in Luxembourg, represented by Patrick Goergen, Lawyer, with
proceedings. The Commission claims that the aid to the ‘Lintra        an address for service in Luxembourg.
Group’ was unlawful and used in contravention of what was
laid down by the approved restructuring plan.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Commission made its decision
on the basis of false premisses. Also, the Commission did not         —     Annul the Decision of 4 December 2000.
consider itself required to examine to what extent individual
undertakings within the group profited from the aid, liability
being assumed on grounds of convenience without any more              —     Order the Court of Auditors of the European Communi-
searching enquiries of subsidiary companies such as ZEMAG                   ties to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 100 000 in
GmbH.                                                                       compensation for non-material damage suffered.
The applicant argues that the Commission misused its discre-          —     Order the Court of Auditors of the European Communi-
tion. It demands the repayment of aid directly from the debtor              ties to pay the costs.
on insolvency, although the aid was not paid to the latter but
to the holding company.
The applicant further argues that the procedure under                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 88(2) EC has been partially circumvented. The contested
measure was thus in breach of discretion, since, if the
Commission had investigated the matter carefully, it would
have been better able to judge the specific situation. It would       The applicant challenges the decision to reassign her to the
then also have been able to determine specifically what amount        translation service as a principal revisor translator responsible
of aid might under certain circumstances have been actually           for unrevised Italian translations and under the direct authority
reclaimable from the applicant.                                       of head of division but not attached to the Italian section.
Irrespective of an obligation to demand repayment of the aid          In support of her action, the applicant pleads infringement of
in question, such an obligation would affect ZEMAG GmbH               procedural requirements in so far as the contested decision
only if the former company members remained members of                contains no grounds and infringement of the rights of the
the company after the second privatisation in 1997, which             defence, a manifest error of assessment, infringement of the
was not the case. Direct personal liability of members thus           principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and
ceased to exist, at least after the second privatisation. Nor,        infringement of the principle of proper administration and the
finally, was there any legal basis for demanding repayment            duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. The applicant
from the subsidiary companies in accordance with a formula,           further claims misuse of power.
as laid down in the contested decision.