# C_2015406EN.01004202.xml

| 7.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/42

---

Action brought on 21 October 2015 — Stichting Accolade v Commission

(Case T-598/15)

(2015/C 406/44)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Accolade (Drachten, Netherlands) (represented by: H. de Boer and J. Abma, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 30 June 2015, reference C(2015) 4411 final, State Aid SA.34676 (2015/NN) — The Netherlands (Alleged sale of land at below market price by the municipality of Harlingen); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 30 June 2015, reference C(2015) 4411 final, State Aid SA.34676 (2015/NN) — The Netherlands (Alleged sale of land at below market price by the municipality of Harlingen);

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly limited the applicant’s objection to a small section of the total land transaction between the municipality of Harlingen and Ludinga VG. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly limited the applicant’s objection to a small section of the total land transaction between the municipality of Harlingen and Ludinga VG.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to apply, or wrongly applied, the private-investor test. The Commission, it is submitted, wrongly used a range of EUR 14 to EUR 24 in assessing the land transaction. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to apply, or wrongly applied, the private-investor test. The Commission, it is submitted, wrongly used a range of EUR 14 to EUR 24 in assessing the land transaction.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the information and assumptions underlying the prices which formed the range used by the Commission are incompatible with one another. As a result, the applicant contends, the transactions used as a reference are not comparable to the contested transaction. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the information and assumptions underlying the prices which formed the range used by the Commission are incompatible with one another. As a result, the applicant contends, the transactions used as a reference are not comparable to the contested transaction.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that an erroneous price was applied to the range. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that an erroneous price was applied to the range.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the alleged facts concerning the indirect advantages. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the alleged facts concerning the indirect advantages.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission drew an inaccurate conclusion with regard to the measure contested by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission drew an inaccurate conclusion with regard to the measure contested by the applicant.

---