# C_2016191EN.01004101.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/41 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland and Others v Commission

(Case T-146/16)

(2016/C 191/54)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland (‘s-Graveland, Netherlands), Stichting Het Groninger Landschap (Haren, Netherlands), It Fryske Gea (Opsterland, Netherlands), Stichting Het Drentse Landschap (Assen, Netherlands), Stichting Het Overijssels Landschap (Dalfsen, Netherlands), Stichting Het Geldersch Landschap (Arnhem, Netherlands), Stichting Flevo-Landschap (Lelystad, Netherlands), Stichting Het Utrechts Landschap (De Bilt, Netherlands), Stichting Landschap Noord-Holland (Heiloo, Netherlands), Stichting Het Zuid-Hollands Landschap (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Stichting Het Zeeuwse Landschap (Heinkenszand, Netherlands), Stichting Het Noordbrabants Landschap (‘s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands), Stichting Het Limburgs Landschap (Maastricht, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Kuypers en M. de Wit, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission Decision of 2 September 2015 on aid measure SA.27301 (2015/NN) — the Netherlands, reference C(2015) 5929 final; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU.
—
The applicants argue that nature conservation in the Netherlands is a service of general interest within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol (No 26) on services of general interest (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 308), and thus does not constitute an economic activity. —
The applicants claim that they were wrongly classified as undertakings within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The applicants argue primarily that they are not-for-profit terreinbeherende organisaties (land management organisations) established to fulfil a (non-economic) public purpose. In the alternative, the applicants argue that they are not undertakings where they acquire land for nature conservation by means of subsidies under the Regeling bijdragen particuliere terreinbeherende natuur beschermingsorganisaties (Regulation on contributions to private land managing nature conservation organisations). —
The subsidy scheme does not lead to an economic advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, in view of the subsidy scheme conditions attached. —
The aid scheme does not lead to a distortion of competition. —
The aid scheme does not have an effect on trade between Member States. | — | The applicants argue that nature conservation in the Netherlands is a service of general interest within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol (No 26) on services of general interest (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 308), and thus does not constitute an economic activity. | — | The applicants claim that they were wrongly classified as undertakings within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The applicants argue primarily that they are not-for-profit terreinbeherende organisaties (land management organisations) established to fulfil a (non-economic) public purpose. In the alternative, the applicants argue that they are not undertakings where they acquire land for nature conservation by means of subsidies under the Regeling bijdragen particuliere terreinbeherende natuur beschermingsorganisaties (Regulation on contributions to private land managing nature conservation organisations). | — | The subsidy scheme does not lead to an economic advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, in view of the subsidy scheme conditions attached. | — | The aid scheme does not lead to a distortion of competition. | — | The aid scheme does not have an effect on trade between Member States. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicants argue that nature conservation in the Netherlands is a service of general interest within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol (No 26) on services of general interest (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 308), and thus does not constitute an economic activity. | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | The applicants claim that they were wrongly classified as undertakings within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The applicants argue primarily that they are not-for-profit terreinbeherende organisaties (land management organisations) established to fulfil a (non-economic) public purpose. In the alternative, the applicants argue that they are not undertakings where they acquire land for nature conservation by means of subsidies under the Regeling bijdragen particuliere terreinbeherende natuur beschermingsorganisaties (Regulation on contributions to private land managing nature conservation organisations). | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | The subsidy scheme does not lead to an economic advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, in view of the subsidy scheme conditions attached. | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | The aid scheme does not lead to a distortion of competition. | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | The aid scheme does not have an effect on trade between Member States. | | | | | | | | | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |

---