# C_2010024EN.01003802.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/38

---

Appeal brought on 25 November 2009 by Holland Malt B.V. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2009 in Case T-369/06: Holland Malt B.V. v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-464/09 P)

2010/C 24/67

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Holland Malt B.V. (represented by: O. W. Brouwer, A.C.E. Stoffer, P. Schepens, advocaten)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of the Netherlands

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside paragraphs 168 to 180 of the judgment of the court of First Instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside paragraphs 168 to 180 of the judgment of the court of First Instance;

| — | Refer the case back to the CFI or annul the decision of the Commission; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the CFI or annul the decision of the Commission; and

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2009 in case T-369/06, Holland Malt B.V. v. Commission (the Judgment), dismissing the application brought by Holland Malt against the decision of the Commission declaring that a subsidy conditionally granted to the Appellant constitutes incompatible aid. The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance made errors of law and a procedural error in dismissing the application brought by Holland Malt. In this regard, the Appellant has forwarded the following pleas:

| A. | The Court of First Instance erred in law in paragraphs 169 to 180 of the Judgment by incorrectly interpreting Article 87(3)(c) EC (1) and by incorrectly interpreting and applying the Community Guidelines on state aid in the agricultural sector. In this regard, the Judgment is moreover vitiated by an inconsistent and inadequate reasoning; and |
| --- | --- |

A.

The Court of First Instance erred in law in paragraphs 169 to 180 of the Judgment by incorrectly interpreting Article 87(3)(c) EC (1) and by incorrectly interpreting and applying the Community Guidelines on state aid in the agricultural sector. In this regard, the Judgment is moreover vitiated by an inconsistent and inadequate reasoning; and

1

| B. | The Court of First Instance committed a procedural error in paragraph 168 of the Judgment by misreading and misrepresenting one of the arguments submitted by the Appellant, which adversely affected the interests of the Appellant. |
| --- | --- |

B.

The Court of First Instance committed a procedural error in paragraph 168 of the Judgment by misreading and misrepresenting one of the arguments submitted by the Appellant, which adversely affected the interests of the Appellant.

---

(1)  OJ C 321 E, p. 76

1

---