# C_2012287EN.01003501.xml

| 22.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/35

---

Action brought on 23 July 2012 — ING Groep v Commission

(Case T-332/12)

2012/C 287/65

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ING Groep NV (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer, J. Blockx and N. Lorjé, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 May 2012 C(2012)3150 final, State aid SA.28855 (N 373/2009) (ex C 10/2009 and ex N 528/2008)-The Netherlands ING — restructuring aid; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 May 2012 C(2012)3150 final, State aid SA.28855 (N 373/2009) (ex C 10/2009 and ex N 528/2008)-The Netherlands ING — restructuring aid; and

| — | 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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principle of sound administration and the right to be heard by not consulting the Dutch State and ING with respect to facts and its views and assumptions that were pertinent for its conclusion that the amendment to the terms of the core-tier-1 capital injection constituted aid under Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principle of sound administration and the right to be heard by not consulting the Dutch State and ING with respect to facts and its views and assumptions that were pertinent for its conclusion that the amendment to the terms of the core-tier-1 capital injection constituted aid under Article 107(1) TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law and committed a manifest error of assessment in applying the market economy investor principle (‘MEIP’) test and failed to provide adequate reasoning when qualifying the amendment to the core-tier-1 capital injection as State aid and an aggravating factor in its assessment of the compensatory measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law and committed a manifest error of assessment in applying the market economy investor principle (‘MEIP’) test and failed to provide adequate reasoning when qualifying the amendment to the core-tier-1 capital injection as State aid and an aggravating factor in its assessment of the compensatory measures.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and the principles of sound administration, proportionality, legal certainty, equal treatment and the duty to state reasons by failing to take into account the amount of aid when assessing the compensatory measures, and by wrongly calculating the relative amount of the aid and the circumstances under which the aid was granted when assessing the compensatory measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and the principles of sound administration, proportionality, legal certainty, equal treatment and the duty to state reasons by failing to take into account the amount of aid when assessing the compensatory measures, and by wrongly calculating the relative amount of the aid and the circumstances under which the aid was granted when assessing the compensatory measures.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, the principle of sound administration, proportionality and the duty to state reasons when making the price leadership bans legally binding on ING. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, the principle of sound administration, proportionality and the duty to state reasons when making the price leadership bans legally binding on ING.

---