# C_2015236EN.01003002.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/30

---

Appeal brought on 27 May 2015 by the Land Hessen against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 17 March 2015 in Case T-89/09 Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

(Case C-242/15 P)

(2015/C 236/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Land Hessen (represented by: U. Soltész, A. Richter, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG, European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2015 in Case T-89/09 in so far as it annulled Commission Decision C(2008)6017 final of 21 October 2008, State aid No 512/2007 — Germany, Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2015 in Case T-89/09 in so far as it annulled Commission Decision C(2008)6017 final of 21 October 2008, State aid No 512/2007 — Germany, Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH;

| — | dismiss the action in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the action in its entirety;

| — | order Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs incurred by the appellant during the proceedings before the General Court and the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs incurred by the appellant during the proceedings before the General Court and the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant raises four grounds in support of its appeal:

| 1. | By its first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in its assessment of the Commission’s margin of discretion. The determination of the value of aid in the form of guarantees is an economically complex issue, for the purposes of which the Commission is granted a margin of discretion. The Commission exercised that margin of discretion in accordance with its long established practice so as to calculate the value of aid in the form of guarantees from German Federal States in accordance with the detailed rules of the German authorities at 0,5 % of the guarantee value. The subsequent publication of the 2000 Guarantee Notice could in no way alter that finding. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By its first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in its assessment of the Commission’s margin of discretion. The determination of the value of aid in the form of guarantees is an economically complex issue, for the purposes of which the Commission is granted a margin of discretion. The Commission exercised that margin of discretion in accordance with its long established practice so as to calculate the value of aid in the form of guarantees from German Federal States in accordance with the detailed rules of the German authorities at 0,5 % of the guarantee value. The subsequent publication of the 2000 Guarantee Notice could in no way alter that finding.

| 2. | In addition, the General Court erred (second ground of appeal) in so far as the concept of aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU is an objective concept, which may not be affected by Commission authorisation. The value of aid in the form of a guarantee may not be altered by the authorisation of the aid scheme. That is the case in particular with respect to de-minimis aid, since the latter does not come within the scope of Article 107 TFEU and consequently cannot be subject to a Commission decision approving an aid scheme. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In addition, the General Court erred (second ground of appeal) in so far as the concept of aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU is an objective concept, which may not be affected by Commission authorisation. The value of aid in the form of a guarantee may not be altered by the authorisation of the aid scheme. That is the case in particular with respect to de-minimis aid, since the latter does not come within the scope of Article 107 TFEU and consequently cannot be subject to a Commission decision approving an aid scheme.

de-minimis

| 3. | By its third ground of appeal, the appellant alleges an infringement of the principle of equality. The calculation of the value of the aid in the form of guarantees, whether based on approved or non-approved aid schemes, concerns factually identical situations, which were treated differently without objective justification. In addition, the General Court erred in law by making a distinction, in the application of the 0,5 % method, between guarantees which were granted before publication of the 2000 Guarantee Notice and those granted after that publication. The Commission’s practice vis-à-vis Germany is however in the present case more specific than the general Guarantee Notice, and the calculation method at issue in the present case would moreover be admissible were it to be assessed in accordance with the 2000 Guarantee Notice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

By its third ground of appeal, the appellant alleges an infringement of the principle of equality. The calculation of the value of the aid in the form of guarantees, whether based on approved or non-approved aid schemes, concerns factually identical situations, which were treated differently without objective justification. In addition, the General Court erred in law by making a distinction, in the application of the 0,5 % method, between guarantees which were granted before publication of the 2000 Guarantee Notice and those granted after that publication. The Commission’s practice vis-à-vis Germany is however in the present case more specific than the general Guarantee Notice, and the calculation method at issue in the present case would moreover be admissible were it to be assessed in accordance with the 2000 Guarantee Notice.

| 4. | Finally, by its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant alleges an error of law in the application of the fundamental principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations. Of particular relevance is the expectation of the Land Hessen that the Commission accept the 0,5 % method in its consistent decision practice, a fact which it in addition expressly confirmed in its 1998 Notice. In addition, during its examination of the guarantee guidelines of the Land Hessen, it did not contest the 0,5 % method. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Finally, by its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant alleges an error of law in the application of the fundamental principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations. Of particular relevance is the expectation of the Land Hessen that the Commission accept the 0,5 % method in its consistent decision practice, a fact which it in addition expressly confirmed in its 1998 Notice. In addition, during its examination of the guarantee guidelines of the Land Hessen, it did not contest the 0,5 % method.

---