Notice for the OJ
Action brought on 13 June 2002 by Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und Veredlung against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-181/02)
Language of the Case: German
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance on 13 June 2002 by Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und Veredlung, Neugersdorf (Germany), represented by Professor U. Ehricke, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Annul the Commission Decision (C(2002)944 fin) of 12 March 2002 concerning State aid by the Federal Republic in favour of Neue Erba Lautex GmbH and Erba Lautex GmbH in liquidation;
(Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas and main arguments
In the contested decision the Commission imposed on the Federal Republic of Germany the obligation to reclaim from a 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 submits that the Commission was incorrect in its finding that the applicant and Erba Lautex GmbH constituted a unit or group of undertakings and that 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 be claimed back from both members of the group. The Commission's Decision is said to be based on the erroneous finding that the applicant's case did not constitute a residual arrangement under the terms of the exception provided for in footnote 10 of the Guidelines.
1 By not applying that exceptional provision the Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment and provided no objective reason for the unequal treatment.
The applicant maintains that the Commission's finding that the applicant and Erba Lautex GmbH were to be deemed to constitute a group was erroneous since the applicant is controlled not by Erba Lautex GmbH but by the liquidator. 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.
In the alternative the applicant maintains that the Commission wrongly classified the relevant measure as aid or, in the alternative, assumed a level of aid intensity greater than was the case. In addition, in finding that the decision of 1999 to claim repayment of aid concerning Erba Lautex GmbH had not been complied with, the Commission manifestly erred in its findings of facts in that regard.
Furthermore, the applicant is claiming that the Commission committed errors of assessment and infringed essential formal requirements. It infringed the duty to provide a statement of reasons and the Federal Government's right to be heard. Finally, the Commission misused its discretion in adopting the contested decision and infringed the right to administration in accordance with the rules.
____________1 - Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (OJ 1999 C 288, p. 2).