Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 6 July 2005 by Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie e.V. Deutsche Gruppe der EURIMA - European Insulation Manufacturers Association against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-254/05)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 July 2005 by Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie e.V. Deutsche Gruppe der EURIMA - European Insulation Manufacturers, Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by T. Schmidt-Kötters, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

-    annul the Commission's decision of 11 February 2005 on State aid N 260b/2004 - Germany - Extension of the support programme on insulating material from renewable raw materials (State aid N 694/2002 - Germany);

-    order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant objects to the Commission's decision of 11 February 2005 in Case C(2005) 379 on State aid N 260/b/2004 - Germany. In the contested decision the Commission considered the extension of the support programme on insulating material from renewable raw materials (State aid N 694/2002) to be compatible with the EC Treaty.

The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC since no reasons are given as to why the measure is clearly beneficial to the environment. In addition, the applicant complains that the contested decision does not address the arguments regarding the original decision raised in the proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance.

The applicant claims furthermore that the contested decision refers to an original decision which is invalid because it infringes essential procedural requirements.

The applicant, further submits that, in considering the measure to be clearly beneficial to the environment and thus compatible with the common market in accordance with Article 87(3)(c) EC, the Commission's decision is based on an inadequate establishment of the facts.

Finally, the applicant complains that the contested decision discriminates against the insulating material referred to by the Commission as 'traditional', in particular mineral fibre insulation material, and also insulating material from renewable raw materials which do not possess the natureplus quality mark, without any objective reason. According to the applicant, the decision thereby infringes the principle of proportionality and the principle of non-discrimination and is thus contrary to fundamental principles of Community law.

____________