# C_2013274EN.01001802.xml

| 21.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/18

---

Action brought on 17 July 2013 — Gemeente Eindhoven v Commission

(Case T-370/13)

2013/C 274/31

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gemeente Eindhoven (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van der Wal, M. van Heezik and L. Parret, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the transaction between the applicant and PSV; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the transaction between the applicant and PSV; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant has brought an action under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU against the Commission’s decision of 6 March 2013 (SA.33584 (2013/C) (ex 2011/NN) — State aid to certain professional Dutch football clubs in 2008 — 2011) (OJ 2013 C 116, p. 19).

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration, including the principle of due care.
  The applicant submits that information was supplied to the Commission on 26 and 28 July 2011, following which no further questions were put to the Netherlands authorities. On 6 March 2013 the Commission decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure. Owing to the considerable period of time that had elapsed (19 months), and the failure to undertake any further (substantive) consultation, the Commission, as a result of its own acts and omissions, did not have a full picture of the relevant facts at the time when the formal procedure was initiated. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration, including the principle of due care.

The applicant submits that information was supplied to the Commission on 26 and 28 July 2011, following which no further questions were put to the Netherlands authorities. On 6 March 2013 the Commission decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure. Owing to the considerable period of time that had elapsed (19 months), and the failure to undertake any further (substantive) consultation, the Commission, as a result of its own acts and omissions, did not have a full picture of the relevant facts at the time when the formal procedure was initiated.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty
  By this plea the applicant submits that it was entitled to proceed on the assumption that the transaction would be assessed within the framework of the Communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities, (1) as had previously been the case when the Commission had assessed similar transactions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty

By this plea the applicant submits that it was entitled to proceed on the assumption that the transaction would be assessed within the framework of the Communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities, (1) as had previously been the case when the Commission had assessed similar transactions.

1

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment
  The Commission made a manifest error of assessment in that it initiated the formal investigation procedure in the absence of reasonable doubts within the meaning of Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999 (2) and the case-law. In taking a view on the existence of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, despite further questions arising, the Commission is also failing to have regard to the provisional nature of a decision under Article 6 of Regulation No 659/1999. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment

The Commission made a manifest error of assessment in that it initiated the formal investigation procedure in the absence of reasonable doubts within the meaning of Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999 (2) and the case-law. In taking a view on the existence of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, despite further questions arising, the Commission is also failing to have regard to the provisional nature of a decision under Article 6 of Regulation No 659/1999.

2

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an insufficient and/or erroneous statement of reasons
  Further to the third plea in law concerning the existence of a manifest error of assessment, the applicant claims that the contested decision does not satisfy the Commission’s obligation to state reasons, in accordance with Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an insufficient and/or erroneous statement of reasons

Further to the third plea in law concerning the existence of a manifest error of assessment, the applicant claims that the contested decision does not satisfy the Commission’s obligation to state reasons, in accordance with Article 296 TFEU.

---

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

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

2

---