Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2009:388
Date: 2009-10-06
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Concepts: Applications by natural or legal persons
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Germany

Action brought on 24 January 2006 - Medienanstalt Berlin-Brandenburg v Commission (Case T-24/06) Language of the case: German Parties Applicant: Medienanstalt Berlin-Brandenburg (MABB) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Schütte, B. Immenkamp, lawyers) Defendant: Commission of the European Communities Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities (C(2005) 3903 final) of 9 November 2005 on the State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg; order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. Pleas in law and main arguments The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2005) 3903 final of 9 November 2005 on the State aid for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg. In the contested decision the Commission stated that the aid granted to the commercial broadcasters participating in DVB-T was incompatible with the common market and ordered the Federal Republic of Germany to recover from the beneficiaries the aid which was unlawfully made available to them. The applicant is expressly referred to as an issuer of aid in the contested decision. In support of its action the applicant puts forward three pleas in law. First, it states that the contested decision errs in law as essential formal requirements have been infringed. The Commission has, in particular, infringed the obligation to state reasons as it has not explained comprehensively why this should be regarded as a case involving State aid. Second, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 87 EC. On the one hand, it contends that there is no aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC. On the other hand, it claims that if there has in fact been aid, that would be compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(c) and (d). Finally, the applicant bases its action on the fact that the contested decision infringes Article 86(2) EC since, in so far as there has been aid, that would be compatible with the common market. ____________