# C_2013189EN.01002702.xml

| 29.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/27

---

Action brought on 6 May 2013 — Gemeente Nijmegen v Commission

(Case T-251/13)

2013/C 189/57

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gemeente Nijmegen (Nijmegen, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Janssen and S. van der Heul, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Decision C(2013) 1152 final of 6 March 2013 in so far as it concerns the alleged aid awarded by the Municipality of Nijmegen to NEC; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision C(2013) 1152 final of 6 March 2013 in so far as it concerns the alleged aid awarded by the Municipality of Nijmegen to NEC;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Municipality (Gemeente) of Nijmegen built the multi-purpose sports complex ‘De Eendracht’ next to the Goffert football stadium in Goffert Park in 2003. Both the Goffert Stadium and De Eendracht were leased to the Nijmegen professional football association, NEC. The lease agreement in respect of De Eendracht includes an agreed right for NEC to acquire De Eendracht.

Gemeente

In mid-2009 the Municipality drew up a plan to develop a large part of Goffert Park as a top-class sport and innovation park (Topsport- en Innovatiepark; TIP). It was expressly intended that, inter alia, the existing (but to be extended) Goffert Stadium and De Eendracht were to be incorporated into the TIP.

Topsport- en Innovatiepark

In 2008 and 2009 NEC informed the Municipality that it wished to exercise its right to buy De Eendracht from the Municipality. That proposal threatened the Municipality’s plans regarding the TIP. NEC appeared to be prepared to surrender its right to acquire De Eendracht in return for payment. On the basis of an independent valuation the purchase price was set at EUR 2.22 million. The Municipality paid that sum to NEC.

The Commission decided, by decision of 6 March 2013, to initiate the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, and the Municipality’s purchase of the right to acquire De Eendracht was deemed to constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU. The Municipality contests that decision.

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

| 1. | First plea, alleging breach of the principles of equality and of legal certainty owing to the fact that the Municipality’s use of the Commission’s Communication on sales of land (1) in the valuation of the right to acquire De Eendracht was disregarded without any reasons being given. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging breach of the principles of equality and of legal certainty owing to the fact that the Municipality’s use of the Commission’s Communication on sales of land (1) in the valuation of the right to acquire De Eendracht was disregarded without any reasons being given.

1

| 2. | Second plea, alleging that the Commission exceeded its powers and erred in law, made a manifest error of assessment and/or infringed its obligation to state reasons by finding that the purchase of the right to acquire De Eendracht was State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, or at any rate that there were sufficient grounds for initiating the formal procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging that the Commission exceeded its powers and erred in law, made a manifest error of assessment and/or infringed its obligation to state reasons by finding that the purchase of the right to acquire De Eendracht was State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, or at any rate that there were sufficient grounds for initiating the formal procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging unreasonable delay in initiating the formal procedure and breach of the principle of legal certainty and procedural requirements, and/or misapplication of the law. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging unreasonable delay in initiating the formal procedure and breach of the principle of legal certainty and procedural requirements, and/or misapplication of the law.

---

(1)  Commission Communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities (OJ 1997 C 209, p. 3).

1

---