# C_2012258EN.01002301.xml

| 25.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/23 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 8 June 2012 — Hammar Nordic Plugg v Commission

(Case T-253/12)

2012/C 258/42

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Hammar Nordic Plugg AB (Trollhättan, Sweden) (represented by: I. Otken Eriksson and U. Öberg, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul, entirely or in part, the European Commission’s decision of 8 February 2012 on State aid SA.28809 (C 29/2010, ex NN 42/2010 and ex CP 194/2009) which Sweden granted in favour of Hammar Nordic Plugg; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------ |

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU
The applicant claims that the municipality of Vänersborg did not grant unlawful aid to the applicant within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU by selling and letting publicly owned property below the property’s market value. In the applicant’s submission, the Commission made a series of incorrect assessments as regards the legal classification of the alleged State aid measures in that:
—
the Commission did not have regard to the fact that the purchase of the installation at an earlier stage for SEK 17 million could constitute State aid; —
the Commission failed to take into account that the actual sale price of SEK 8 million was in accordance with the installation’s market value; —
the Commission disregarded the principle of a private investor in a market economy, by fixing the value at a later stage at different value time points as the basis of its decision before the actual sale to a private investor; —
the so-called ‘third estimate in the PwC report’ at the value time point of March 2008 did not constitute a reliable indicator of the true market value of the installation, and —
the Commission did not have regard to the fact that the installation was quite simply sold at a later stage for SEK 8 million in May 2011 after an open bidding procedure as part of the new owners’ insolvency. | — | the Commission did not have regard to the fact that the purchase of the installation at an earlier stage for SEK 17 million could constitute State aid; | — | the Commission failed to take into account that the actual sale price of SEK 8 million was in accordance with the installation’s market value; | — | the Commission disregarded the principle of a private investor in a market economy, by fixing the value at a later stage at different value time points as the basis of its decision before the actual sale to a private investor; | — | the so-called ‘third estimate in the PwC report’ at the value time point of March 2008 did not constitute a reliable indicator of the true market value of the installation, and | — | the Commission did not have regard to the fact that the installation was quite simply sold at a later stage for SEK 8 million in May 2011 after an open bidding procedure as part of the new owners’ insolvency. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the Commission did not have regard to the fact that the purchase of the installation at an earlier stage for SEK 17 million could constitute State aid; | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | the Commission failed to take into account that the actual sale price of SEK 8 million was in accordance with the installation’s market value; | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | the Commission disregarded the principle of a private investor in a market economy, by fixing the value at a later stage at different value time points as the basis of its decision before the actual sale to a private investor; | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | the so-called ‘third estimate in the PwC report’ at the value time point of March 2008 did not constitute a reliable indicator of the true market value of the installation, and | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | the Commission did not have regard to the fact that the installation was quite simply sold at a later stage for SEK 8 million in May 2011 after an open bidding procedure as part of the new owners’ insolvency. | | | | | | | | | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in that the alleged State aid did not distort competition and did not affect trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the Commission’s obligation to carry out investigations and duty to state reasons and the applicant’s rights of the defence. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

---