# C_2007042EN.01002302.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/23

---

Action brought on 7 December 2006 — Holland Malt v Commission

(Case T-369/06)

(2007/C 42/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Holland Malt BV (Lieshout, Netherlands) (represented by: O.W. Brouwer and D. Mes, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul, in full or in part, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, in full or in part, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

| — | take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(200) 4196 final (1) of 26 September 2006 by which the Commission declared that a subsidy that the Netherlands conditionally granted to the applicant constitutes State aid that is incompatible with the common market.

1

The applicant contests that the Commission was entitled to find that the subsidy constituted State aid incompatible with the common market and submits that the Commission committed infringements of Article 87 EC and a number of principles of Community law. These infringements concern the following:

| 1) | Infringement of Article 87(1) EC related to a failure to establish that the subsidy constituted State aid in the sense of this provision and a misconstruction and misapplication of Community case law on this point; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Infringement of Article 87(1) EC related to a failure to establish that the subsidy constituted State aid in the sense of this provision and a misconstruction and misapplication of Community case law on this point;

| 2) | Infringement of Article 87(3) EC related to:






  a) | A misconstruction and misapplication of the Community Guidelines (2) on State aid in the agriculture sector; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2)

Infringement of Article 87(3) EC related to:

a)

A misconstruction and misapplication of the Community Guidelines (2) on State aid in the agriculture sector;

2

| b) | A failure to properly balance the beneficial effects of the subsidy and its impact on trading conditions inside the Community; |
| --- | --- |

b)

A failure to properly balance the beneficial effects of the subsidy and its impact on trading conditions inside the Community;

| c) | A failure to properly assess and establish the impact of the subsidy on capacities in the malt industry; |
| --- | --- |

c)

A failure to properly assess and establish the impact of the subsidy on capacities in the malt industry;

| d) | A failure to take account of events and developments that occurred between the moment the Dutch government decided to conditionally grant the subsidy and the moment the Commission adopted the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

d)

A failure to take account of events and developments that occurred between the moment the Dutch government decided to conditionally grant the subsidy and the moment the Commission adopted the contested decision;

| 3) | Infringement of the principle of sound administration related to a failure to duly investigate all aspects and interests involved in the granting of the subsidy, including events and developments that occurred between the moment the Dutch government decided to conditionally grant the subsidy and the moment the Commission adopted its decision. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Infringement of the principle of sound administration related to a failure to duly investigate all aspects and interests involved in the granting of the subsidy, including events and developments that occurred between the moment the Dutch government decided to conditionally grant the subsidy and the moment the Commission adopted its decision.

| 4) | Infringement of the duty to state reasons as laid down in Article 253 EC. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Infringement of the duty to state reasons as laid down in Article 253 EC.

---

(1)  C 14/2005 (ex N 149/2004) Holland Malt BV.

1

(2)  Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector (OJ 2000 C 28, p. 2).

2

---