# C_2005155EN.01002801.xml

| 25.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/28

---

Action brought on 27 April 2005 by Bundesverband deutscher Banken e.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-163/05)

(2005/C 155/54)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 April 2005 by Bundesverband deutscher Banken e.V. (Federal Association of German Banks) Berlin, represented by H.-J. Niemeyer and K.-S. Scholz, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2004) 3931 fin. COR — Landesbank Hessen — Thüringen — Girozentrale of 20 October 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2004) 3931 fin. COR — Landesbank Hessen — Thüringen — Girozentrale of 20 October 2004;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant objects to Commission Decision C(2004) 3931 fin. COR of 20 October 2004 concerning an aid measure of the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of Landesbank Hessen — Thüringen — Girozentrale (Helaba). In the contested decision the Commission asserts, inter alia, that the waiver of a ‘reasonable remuneration’ of 0.3 % p.a. in respect of the part of the capital transferred by Land Hessen to Helaba amounts to aid incompatible with the common market.

The applicant submits that the contested decision infringes Article 87(1) EC since:

| — | the Commission applied the wrong assessment period for the examination of what remuneration is to be considered as usual in the market and thus incorrectly applied the market-economy capital-investment test; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission applied the wrong assessment period for the examination of what remuneration is to be considered as usual in the market and thus incorrectly applied the market-economy capital-investment test;

| — | the legal and economic classification of the capital investment was erroneous; |
| --- | --- |

—

the legal and economic classification of the capital investment was erroneous;

| — | the determination of the relevant capital base to be remunerated was erroneous; |
| --- | --- |

—

the determination of the relevant capital base to be remunerated was erroneous;

| — | the Commission incorrectly determined ‘reasonable remuneration’ for the Helaba capital investment. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission incorrectly determined ‘reasonable remuneration’ for the Helaba capital investment.

The applicant claims in addition that the contested decision should be annulled as it infringes the obligation to state reasons under Article 253 EC. The applicant contends that insufficient reasons were given for deducting Helaba's full refinancing costs on the ground that the capital investment was not liquid. According to the applicant, this deduction of the refinancing costs also infringes Article 87(1) EC.

---