# C_2009233EN.01001201.xml

| 26.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/12

---

Appeal brought on 12 August 2009 by NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket AB against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 9 June 2009 in Case T-152/06: NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket AB v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-322/09 P)

2009/C 233/21

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket AB (represented by: M. Merola and L. Armati, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

| — | declare the action of Destination Stockholm in case T-152/06 admissible and grounded, and therefore grant the forms of order sought at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action of Destination Stockholm in case T-152/06 admissible and grounded, and therefore grant the forms of order sought at first instance;

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

—

order the Commission to bear costs.

In the alternative:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety and declare the action of Destination Stockholm in case T-152/06 admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety and declare the action of Destination Stockholm in case T-152/06 admissible;

| — | refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for the examination of the merits of the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for the examination of the merits of the case;

| — | reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that, in judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance:

| — | misapplied Article 230 EC by manifestly distorting of the content of the contested letters, the intention of their author and the evidence adduced before the CFI; |
| --- | --- |

—

misapplied Article 230 EC by manifestly distorting of the content of the contested letters, the intention of their author and the evidence adduced before the CFI;

| — | incorrectly classified the Commission's position on the compatibility of the contested measures as preliminary and used a contradictory reasoning on the same issue; |
| --- | --- |

—

incorrectly classified the Commission's position on the compatibility of the contested measures as preliminary and used a contradictory reasoning on the same issue;

| — | inappropriately made reference to Article 88(1) EC by considering that the Commission rejected a request to recommend appropriate measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

inappropriately made reference to Article 88(1) EC by considering that the Commission rejected a request to recommend appropriate measures;

| — | incorrectly applied Articles 4, 10, 13 and 20(2) of the Regulation No 659/1999 (1), in particular by ruling that the classification by the Commission of the contested measures as existing aid prevents the rejection of a complaint from being challenged. |
| --- | --- |

—

incorrectly applied Articles 4, 10, 13 and 20(2) of the Regulation No 659/1999 (1), in particular by ruling that the classification by the Commission of the contested measures as existing aid prevents the rejection of a complaint from being challenged.

1

---

(1)  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 L 83, p. 1.

1

---