CELEX: C1996/336/63
Language: en
Date: 1996-11-09 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 12 September 1996 by Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co. KG, Hochland Reich, Summer & Co. KG, Milchwerk Crailsheim eG, Milchwerk Geislingen eG, Wendelstein Käsewerk Molkerei Ziegenhain GmbH & Co. KG and Zentral-Molkerei Aurich GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-141/96)

No C 336/30          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9 . 11 . 96
Action brought on 12 September 1996 by Bergpracht                   Instance of the European Communities on 13 September
Milchwerk GmbH & Co. KG, Hochland Reich, Summer &                    19 96 by Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg ( Federal Republic of
Co. KG, Milchwerk Crailsheim eG, Milchwerk Geislingen               Germany ), and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH, Mosel
eG, Wendelstein Käsewerk Molkerei Ziegenhain GmbH &                 ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented by Michael
Co. KG and Zentral-Molkerei Aurich GmbH against the                 Schütte and Martina Maier, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs
        Commission of the European Communities                      Bruckhaus Westrick Stegemann, Brussels , with an address
                      ( Case T-141 /96 )                            for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Bonn
                                                                    & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume .
                         ( 96/C 336/63 )
              (Language of the case: German)                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                    — annul Article 2 of Decision COM(96 ) 1844 final of the
An action against the Commission of the European                         Commission of 26 June 1996 ,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 12 September                — annul Article 3 ( 2 ) of Decision COM(96 ) 1844 final of
 1996 by Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co . KG, Tettnang                   the Commission of 26 June 1996 in so far as the
( Federal Republic of Germany ), Hochland Reich, Summer
                                                                         combined effective aid intensity, expressed in terms of
& Co . KG, Heimenkirch ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
                                                                         the gross subsidy equivalent, is limited to 22,3 % for
Milchwerk Crailsheim eG, Crailsheim ( Federal Republic of                Mosel II and 20,8 % for Chemnitz II ,
Germany ), Milchwerk Geislingen eG, Geislingen/Steige
( Federal Republic of Germany ), Wendelstein Käsewerk               — annul Article 1 of Decision COM(96 ) 1844 final of the
Molkerei Ziegenhain GmbH & Co . KG, Bad Aibling
                                                                         Commission of 26 June 1996 in so far as the amount of
( Federal Republic of Germany ) and Zentral-Molkerei
                                                                         the direct investment grants declared compatible with
Aurich GmbH, Aurich ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
                                                                         the common market is limited to DM 418,7 million,
represented by Jürgen Salzwedel and Michael Loschelder,
Rechtsanwälte , of Messrs Gaedertz Vieregge Quack Kreile ,
                                                                    — order the Commission to pay the costs .
Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Marc Loesch , of Messrs Loesch & Wolter, 1 1
Rue Goethe .                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :                        1 . Erroneous and incomplete findings of fact
— annul the registration of the name ' feta ' in the list of        The decision did not take into account the initial situation
    protected designations of origin pursuant to Article 1 of       which Volkswagen AG found to exist with regard to the
    Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 of 12 June              'green-field ' investments in Mosel II and Chemnitz II . The
    1996 on the registration of geographical indications and        findings of fact were erroneous in so far as they concerned
    designations of origin under the procedure laid down by         the drawbacks          associated with new investment in a
    Article 17 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 ,          less-favoured region, particularly as regards suppliers, the
                                                                    training of the workforce, the setting-up of the logistics
— order the Commission of the European Communities to               needed for the commercial production of vehicles and an
    pay the costs.                                                  efficient infrastructure . As a result, the Commission
                                                                    wrongly assumed that what was involved was investment in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 extensions to the paint-shop and final assembly plants in
                                                                    Mosel II and the extension of Chemnitz II .
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same, in
general terms, as those in Case T-l 39/96 MD Foods Amba             Consequently, the decision was adopted in breach of
and Others v. Commission and Case T-140/96 Societe
                                                                    essential procedural requirements within the meaning of the
Anonyme des Caves et Producteurs Réunis de Roquefort                second paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty .
( Aveyron ) and Others v. Commission .
                                                                    2 . Incorrect application of Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the EC
                                                                         Treaty
                                                                    The decision is illegal inasmuch as the Commission failed to
Action brought on 13 September 1996 by Volkswagen AG                apply Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty . The Commission 's
and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH against the Commission of               view that the exceptional factors referred to by
                the European Communities                            Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the Treaty must be strictly construed,
                        Case T-143/96 )                             and that they should not be applied to regional aid for new
                                                                    investment projects, is wrong in law, in two respects . First,
                        ( 96/C 336/64 )                             the Commission wrongly failed to apply Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of
                                                                    the Treaty at all , without providing a statement of reasons
              (Language of the case: German)                        for this in a manner corresponding to the requirements of
                                                                    Article 190 of the EC Treaty . Second , had the Commission
An action against the Commission of the European                    applied Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ), it would necessarily have
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   concluded that the conditions laid down by that provision