# C_2011238EN.01000202.xml

| 13.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/2

---

Appeal brought on 1 March 2011 by Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep, formerly Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS), against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Joined Cases T-231/06 and T-237/06 Kingdom of the Netherlands (T-231/06) and Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS) (T-237/06) v European Commission

Kingdom of the Netherlands

and Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS)

European Commission

(Case C-104/11 P)

2011/C 238/03

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep, formerly Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS) (represented by: J.J. Feenstra, advocaat)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 in Joined Cases T-231/06 and T-237/06; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 in Joined Cases T-231/06 and T-237/06;

| — | since the state of the proceedings so permits, annul Commission Decision 2008/136/EC (1) of 22 June 2006 on the ad hoc financing of Dutch public service broadcasters (NPO); |
| --- | --- |

—

since the state of the proceedings so permits, annul Commission Decision 2008/136/EC (1) of 22 June 2006 on the ad hoc financing of Dutch public service broadcasters (NPO);

1

ad hoc

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal before the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal before the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| | First plea in law: infringement of Articles 107 TFEU, 108 TFEU and 296 TFEU in so far as the General Court erroneously and on the basis of insufficient reasoning considered the Broadcasting Reserve Fund (FOR) monies and transfer back to the NPO of certain built-up reserves by individual broadcasting entities to be a form of grant of new aid


  The General Court erred in interpreting and applying the concepts of aid, existing aid and new aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU et seq. by finding that the availability of FOR funds and the transfer back to the NPO by individual Dutch broadcasting entities of certain built-up reserves must be deemed to be a grant of new aid, without providing sufficient reasoning in that regard. |
| --- | --- |

First plea in law: infringement of Articles 107 TFEU, 108 TFEU and 296 TFEU in so far as the General Court erroneously and on the basis of insufficient reasoning considered the Broadcasting Reserve Fund (FOR) monies and transfer back to the NPO of certain built-up reserves by individual broadcasting entities to be a form of grant of new aid

First plea in law: infringement of Articles 107 TFEU, 108 TFEU and 296 TFEU in so far as the General Court erroneously and on the basis of insufficient reasoning considered the Broadcasting Reserve Fund (FOR) monies and transfer back to the NPO of certain built-up reserves by individual broadcasting entities to be a form of grant of new aid

The General Court erred in interpreting and applying the concepts of aid, existing aid and new aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU et seq. by finding that the availability of FOR funds and the transfer back to the NPO by individual Dutch broadcasting entities of certain built-up reserves must be deemed to be a grant of new aid, without providing sufficient reasoning in that regard.

| | Second plea in law: infringement of the rights of the defence.


  The General Court infringed the requirement to observe the rights of the defence enshrined in European Union law and the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU and Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) by wrongly and on the basis of erroneous and insufficient reasoning rejecting the appellant’s plea for observance of the rights of the defence and by ruling that the NPO’s rights of defence had not been infringed. |
| --- | --- |

Second plea in law: infringement of the rights of the defence.

Second plea in law: infringement of the rights of the defence.

The General Court infringed the requirement to observe the rights of the defence enshrined in European Union law and the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU and Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) by wrongly and on the basis of erroneous and insufficient reasoning rejecting the appellant’s plea for observance of the rights of the defence and by ruling that the NPO’s rights of defence had not been infringed.

2

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 49, p. 1.

1

(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 (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

2

---