This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/212/55
Case T-162/06: Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Kronoply v Commission
Case T-162/06: Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Kronoply v Commission
Case T-162/06: Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Kronoply v Commission
OJ C 212, 2.9.2006, p. 30–31
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
2.9.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 212/30 |
Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Kronoply v Commission
(Case T-162/06)
(2006/C 212/55)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Kronoply GmbH & Co KG (Heiligengrabe, Germany) (represented by: R. Nierer and L. Gordalla, lawyers)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul the Commission's decision of 21 September 2005 regarding State aid No C 5/2004 (ex N 609/2003) by which the Commission declares the aid Germany wishes to grant the applicant to be incompatible with the common market; |
|
— |
Order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is contesting Commission Decision C(2005) 3497 of 21 September 2005 in which the Commission decided that the investment grant which Germany intended to give Kronoply GmbH in the context of the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects (1) constitutes State aid which is incompatible with the common market.
The applicant submits four pleas in law in support of its application.
First, it complains that the Commission clearly erred as regards the findings of fact. In that respect it submits, inter alia, that the defendant did not ascertain the date on which the applicant applied for grants although it is of decisive importance with regard to an examination of the facts. Furthermore, it submits that the Commission overlooked the fact that the national administrative procedure has not yet been brought to an end.
Secondly, the applicant submits in support of its application the plea that the contested decision is not adequately reasoned.
Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission has infringed Article 87(3)(a) and (c) EC and Article 88 EC, Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) and the Guidelines on national regional aid (3).
Lastly, the applicant complains of manifest errors of assessment and misuse of powers on the part of the defendant.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty.
(3) OJ 1998 C 74, p. 9, amended by OJ 2000 C 258, p. 5.