Order — ECLI:EU:T:2026:349
Date: 2026-05-11
Language of the case: German

Action brought on 6 August 2025 – TNG Stadtnetz v Commission (Case T-548/25) Language of the case: German Parties Applicant: TNG Stadtnetz GmbH (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: S. Louven, lawyer) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: declare that the defendant infringed Article 15 of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 1 and Article 108(2) TFEU by failing to take a decision on the complaint lodged by the applicant on 22 May 2024 following the applicant’s request of 8 April 2025 (Commission Case Number SA. 114187); order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law. First plea: failure to act on a State aid complaint By its first plea in law, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to act in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 and Article 108(2) TFEU by taking a decision pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 and Article 108(2) TFEU, following the complaint that the applicant submitted to it and after having been requested to take action. Second plea: failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure in the event of the preliminary selection of an undertaking for State aid, which was manifestly contrary to State aid law By its second plea in law, the applicant claims that, contrary to Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 1 and the Commission’s own practical guidelines and administrative practice on the approval of aid in connection with broadband development in Germany, the Commission did not find that there was a clear infringement of the applicable State aid law in the preliminary selection of an undertaking for various future funding projects. The applicant claims that the Commission should therefore have initiated a formal investigation procedure against the Federal Republic of Germany. Third plea: unreasonably long period of inaction and inadequate investigations By its third plea in law, the applicant claims that, contrary to Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 and contrary to the principle of good administration under Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of the rule of law under the first sentence of Article 2 TEU and Article 52(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Commission failed to initiate the formal investigation procedure within a reasonable time, despite the manifest illegality of the contested measure under State aid law. ____________ 1 OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9. 1 Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty (OJ 2014 L 187, p. 1).