# C_2019363EN.01002701.xml

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/27

---

Action brought on 6 September 2019 — Helsingin kaupunki v Commission

(Case T-597/19)

(2019/C 363/36)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Helsingin kaupunki (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: I. Aalto-Setälä, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul, in whole or in part, the Commission’s Decision of 28 June 2019 on State aid SA.33846 — (2015/C) (ex 2011/CP); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, in whole or in part, the Commission’s Decision of 28 June 2019 on State aid SA.33846 — (2015/C) (ex 2011/CP);

| — | order the Commission to pay the city’s costs in full, together with interest. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the city’s costs in full, together with interest.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging manifest error in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU in the contested decision






  — | The Commission manifestly misapplied the market economy operator principle. Further, in the course of its investigation, it failed to take due account of all the information and statements communicated during the investigation procedure, which showed that the loans at issue were granted under normal market conditions and in accordance with the procedures that would have been followed by a prudent investor operating in a market economy under comparable economic conditions. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU in the contested decision

—

The Commission manifestly misapplied the market economy operator principle. Further, in the course of its investigation, it failed to take due account of all the information and statements communicated during the investigation procedure, which showed that the loans at issue were granted under normal market conditions and in accordance with the procedures that would have been followed by a prudent investor operating in a market economy under comparable economic conditions.

| — | The assessment of the measures at issue is contrary to the Commission’s practice in taking decisions and to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Commission used methods of calculation that are not suitable for assessing the specific aspects of operating loans. |
| --- | --- |

—

The assessment of the measures at issue is contrary to the Commission’s practice in taking decisions and to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Commission used methods of calculation that are not suitable for assessing the specific aspects of operating loans.

| — | In addition, the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the disputed equipment loan could not be classified as existing aid. |
| --- | --- |

—

In addition, the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the disputed equipment loan could not be classified as existing aid.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the reasons for the contested decision do not meet the requirements of Article 296 TFEU or of the relevant case-law






  — | The reasons given for the contested decision are insufficient, in particular in relation to the assessment as to whether the purchase price for the business of Helsingin Bussiliikenne (HelB) was a market price, the Commission having disputed without cause the accuracy of the expert’s report submitted by Finland, without putting forward its own clear and unequivocal view concerning the market price. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the reasons for the contested decision do not meet the requirements of Article 296 TFEU or of the relevant case-law

—

The reasons given for the contested decision are insufficient, in particular in relation to the assessment as to whether the purchase price for the business of Helsingin Bussiliikenne (HelB) was a market price, the Commission having disputed without cause the accuracy of the expert’s report submitted by Finland, without putting forward its own clear and unequivocal view concerning the market price.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to the general principles of EU law, in particular the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of proportionality, and that it infringes the rights of the defence






  — | The Commission, erroneously and in breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, found in the contested decision that the equipment loan granted to HKL-Bussiliikenne constituted aid, by applying a stricter interpretation to the concept of the existing aid scheme than Finland had previously been aware of. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to the general principles of EU law, in particular the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of proportionality, and that it infringes the rights of the defence

—

The Commission, erroneously and in breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, found in the contested decision that the equipment loan granted to HKL-Bussiliikenne constituted aid, by applying a stricter interpretation to the concept of the existing aid scheme than Finland had previously been aware of.

| — | The order for recovery made by the Commission in the contested decision manifestly exceeds what is necessary to remove the unfair competitive advantage caused by the alleged State aid. The price ultimately paid for the business of HelB was a market price. The purchaser of the business did not derive an unfair advantage, as the aid was taken into account in the purchase price. The extension of the recovery order to include the purchaser of the business is thus contrary to the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

—

The order for recovery made by the Commission in the contested decision manifestly exceeds what is necessary to remove the unfair competitive advantage caused by the alleged State aid. The price ultimately paid for the business of HelB was a market price. The purchaser of the business did not derive an unfair advantage, as the aid was taken into account in the purchase price. The extension of the recovery order to include the purchaser of the business is thus contrary to the principle of proportionality.

---