# C_2009055EN.01004102.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/41

---

Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-571/08)

(2009/C 55/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and B. Klein)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission's decision of 30 October 2008 in the proceedings ‘State aid C 36/2007 — State aid to Deutsche Post AG’ concerning the information injunction; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission's decision of 30 October 2008 in the proceedings ‘State aid C 36/2007 — State aid to Deutsche Post AG’ concerning the information injunction;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is directed against the decision of the Commission of the European Communities (C (2008) 6468) of 30 October 2008 by which, in State aid procedure C 36/2007 (ex NN 25/2007), the Commission required Germany, pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1), to send all the documents, information and data required in order to assess the costs and revenues of Deutsche Post in the period from 1989 to 2007.

1

The applicant raises two pleas in law.

By the first plea in law, the applicant claims that the information injunction infringes essential rules as to form.

| — | The requirements as to the valid setting of a time-limit and as to a ‘reminder, allowing an appropriate additional period’ in accordance with Articles 5(2) and 10(3) of Regulation No 659/1999 were not satisfied. In the alternative, the applicant observes that the period allowed in the information injunction itself was disproportionate. |
| --- | --- |

—

The requirements as to the valid setting of a time-limit and as to a ‘reminder, allowing an appropriate additional period’ in accordance with Articles 5(2) and 10(3) of Regulation No 659/1999 were not satisfied. In the alternative, the applicant observes that the period allowed in the information injunction itself was disproportionate.

| — | Furthermore, the information injunction does not safeguard the protection enshrined in Article 287 EC of Deutsche Post AG's business secrets, since the data would presumably be passed to an external undertaking — which might also be working for competitors of Deutsche Post AG — for analysis, and the Commission refuses to provide further details in that regard. |
| --- | --- |

—

Furthermore, the information injunction does not safeguard the protection enshrined in Article 287 EC of Deutsche Post AG's business secrets, since the data would presumably be passed to an external undertaking — which might also be working for competitors of Deutsche Post AG — for analysis, and the Commission refuses to provide further details in that regard.

By its second plea in law, the applicant claims that the information injunction also infringes Articles 87(1) EC and 86(2) EC in conjunction with the principles of proportionality and legal certainty, since the data requested are not necessary for the assessment in terms of State-aid law of any of the three State measures at issue in the proceedings.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

1

---