# C_2017014EN.01005201.xml

| 16.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/52

---

Action brought on 14 November 2016 — Real Madrid Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T-791/16)

(2017/C 014/62)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Real Madrid Club de Fútbol (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Pérez-Bustamante and F. Löwhagen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present application admissible;

| — | annul, in its entirety, the Commission decision of 4 July 2016 in Case SA.33754 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in its entirety, the Commission decision of 4 July 2016 in Case SA.33754 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN);

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision in the present case, the Commission considered that a transfer of land between Real Madrid and Madrid City Council constituted State aid, in so far as the land to which the transaction related had been overvalued by EUR 18,4 million.

The contested decision arises from the non-compliance, by Madrid City Council, with the 1998 implementing agreement, under which it undertook to transfer to Real Madrid CF plot B-32 in Las Tablas. Madrid City Council and Real Madrid CF remedied that situation by the 2011 settlement agreement under which compensation was awarded to Real Madrid FC in the form of the transfer of the abovementioned land.

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






  — | In that regard, the applicant submits that the Commission committed manifest errors when it concluded that the 2011 settlement agreement conferred an economic advantage on the applicant and thus constituted State aid in its favour. By the 2011 settlement agreement, Madrid City Council merely recognised its responsibility for the non-compliance with the 1998 implementing agreement. Furthermore, the Commission did not take into account, in applying the principle of the private market economy operator, of the fact that options other than the 2011 settlement agreement, such as defending a legal action, would have been much more onerous for the city council. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

—

In that regard, the applicant submits that the Commission committed manifest errors when it concluded that the 2011 settlement agreement conferred an economic advantage on the applicant and thus constituted State aid in its favour. By the 2011 settlement agreement, Madrid City Council merely recognised its responsibility for the non-compliance with the 1998 implementing agreement. Furthermore, the Commission did not take into account, in applying the principle of the private market economy operator, of the fact that options other than the 2011 settlement agreement, such as defending a legal action, would have been much more onerous for the city council.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of article 107(1) TFEU and the general principle of sound administration.






  — | In that regard, the applicant submits that the Commission has made serious errors of assessment by basing its conclusions on an expert opinion with no probative value and by rejecting the other valuations of plot B-32 included in the file without having sought the opinion of its own assessor or any other expert with the relevant qualifications. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

—

In that regard, the applicant submits that the Commission has made serious errors of assessment by basing its conclusions on an expert opinion with no probative value and by rejecting the other valuations of plot B-32 included in the file without having sought the opinion of its own assessor or any other expert with the relevant qualifications.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 107(1) and 296 TFEU and the principle of sound administration when determining the amount of compensation awarded to Real Madrid FC under the 2011 settlement agreement.






  — | In that regard, the applicant submits that the Commission has not assessed the value of the immovable property transferred to the applicant under the 2011 settlement agreement as compensation but has accepted, without any reasoning and without replying to the detailed arguments set out by the applicant on that point, the value which the Madrid City Council attributed to it, although the Commission simply rejected the other valuations (such as the valuation of plot B-32) carried out by the city council using the same method. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

—

In that regard, the applicant submits that the Commission has not assessed the value of the immovable property transferred to the applicant under the 2011 settlement agreement as compensation but has accepted, without any reasoning and without replying to the detailed arguments set out by the applicant on that point, the value which the Madrid City Council attributed to it, although the Commission simply rejected the other valuations (such as the valuation of plot B-32) carried out by the city council using the same method.

---