C 61/16

EN

24.2.2001

Official Journal of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Sophie Van Weyenbergh against the Commission of the European Communities

The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-357/00 Martı´nez Alarco´n v Commission.

(Case T-364/00)

(2001/C 61/32)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Sophie Van Weyenbergh, residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by Carlos Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Case T-363/00)

—annul the decision dated 28 January 2000 of the selection board in competition COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit the applicant to that competition, and the implicit decision of the appointing authority dated 9 October 2000 giving a negative response to the complaint submitted by the applicant;

(2001/C 61/31)

(Language of the case: French)

—alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of BEF 2 941 667, subject to alteration during the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation for material and non-material damage;

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Luigia Dricot, residing at Overijse (Belgium), represented by Carlos Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.

—order the defendant to pay the costs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

—annul the decisions dated 28 January 2000 and 24 February 2000 of the selection board in competition COM/TB/99, deciding not to admit the applicant to that competition, and the implicit decision of the appointing authority dated 28 August 2000 giving a negative response to the complaint submitted by the applicant;

—alternatively, order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of BEF 500 000, subject to alteration during the course of the proceedings, by way of compensation for material and non-material damage;

(Case T-366/00)

—order the defendant to pay the costs.

(2001/C 61/33)

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Language of the case: English)

The pleas in law and arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-357/00 Martı´nez Alarco´n v Commission.

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 November 2000 by Scott S.A., a company registered in France, represented by Jeremy Lever QC and George Peretz, Barristers and Robin Griffith, Solicitor of Clifford Chance, London.

24.2.2001

EN

C 61/17

Official Journal of the European Communities

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—That the contested decision violates the principle of the legitimate expectation, inasmuch as for many years prior to 1997, the Commission would have known about the existence and contents of French Law pursuant to which the aid in question has been granted.

—annul the contested decision, alternatively Article 2 thereof; and

—That the Commission committed manifest error of calculation.

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

1 ( ) OJ L 83, of 27.3.1999, p. 1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The current application arises out of the Commission Decision of 12 July 2000 (C(2000)2183) addressed to the French Republic concerning two aids said to have been granted to the applicant by the French Public Authorities. The two aids in question consist of:

—That the local authorities arranged for the transfer to the applicant of a certain and, namely 49 hectares of 68 hectares site in the industrial zone of La Saussaye, and a factory on that site at a preferential price.

(Case T-368/00)

—That the applicant benefited from a preferential tariff in respect of effluent treatment charges (redevances d’assainissement) levied by the City of Orléans.

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 November 2000 by General Motors Nederland B.V. and Opel Nederland B.V., companies registered in the Netherlands, represented by Dirk Vandermeersch, Robbert Snelders and Steven Allcock of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, Brussels.

—That insofar as Article 2 of the contested decision orders the French Republic to recover the aid in question, it infringes Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999, laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 [now 88] of the EEC Treaty ( ), which provides for a 10 year limitation period in respect of the Commission’s power to recover aid.

In support of their conclusions, the applicant submits:

—annul Commission Decision No. C(2000) 2707 of 20 September 2000 (Case COMP/36.653 — Opel), addressed to General Motors Nederland B.V. and Opel Nederland B.V.; alternatively

—That the administrative procedure infringed essential procedural requirements and the applicant’s rights of defence and that the recovery order requires the French Republic to act in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights. In this connection, Scott relies in particular on the fact that there was never any fair trial of the issues on which its liability to ‘repay’ the alleged aid was determined, let alone any fair trial in which the applicant could participate and in which the rights of defence were respected. On the contrary, the Commission treated the administrative procedure as being essentially a procedure between itself and the French Republic.

The contested decision imposes a fine of 43 million euros on the applicants for an alleged infringement of Article 81(1) EC. The Commission concludes that Opel Nederland B.V. entered

—That the contested decision results in unequal treatment of equal situations, in relation to cases that in pari materia with that of Scott.