Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2004:304
Date: 2004-10-14
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Concepts: Commission discretion;Aid to small and medium-sized enterprises
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

summary of that notice, that ‘there are certain indications that the different legal entities may operate under the same management and that their production is coordinated like that of a single company’. The defendant added that it doubted ‘whether the sole legal person Pollmeier Malchow GmbH can be considered as the beneficiary of the aid’. Moreover, it is apparent from the letter of 13 March 2001 by which the defendant notified the Federal Republic of Germany of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down by Article 88(2) EC, and in particular from question 8 therein, that the defendant requested the Federal Republic of Germany to provide it with information in respect of the relations between Mr Pollmeier, Mr Ekkerhard Pollmeier and Mrs Doris Tegelkamp, the latter appearing to be partners and/or managers of companies which belong to the Pollmeier group. The argument of the applicant must therefore fail on the facts. 77 The defendant could therefore find, without committing a manifest error of assessment, that because of their economic links, the integration of some of their structures and the composition of their capital, the applicant and IWS, Pollmeier GmbH, Holzverarbeitungsbetrieb, Rietberg, and Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG, Creuzburg, formed one and the same economic unit and that IWS should therefore be taken into consideration in defining the beneficiary of the aid. 78 Since the applicant has not challenged the finding that, with the figures for IWS, the group did not satisfy the definition criteria for SMEs, the defendant was entitled to find that the aid beneficiary was a large company. 79 It follows that the defendant was entitled to find, at paragraph 86 of the grounds of the contested decision, that ‘given that the aid beneficiary [was] a large company, only 35% of the aid granted complies with the conditions of the scheme; therefore only aid up to this amount [could] be seen as existing aid. The remaining 13.18% must be viewed as new aid’, and that, ‘since this new aid [had been] granted without the Commission’s approval, it [was] illegal.’ 80 Lastly, since the defendant was able to find, without committing a manifest error of assessment, that the various companies held by Mr Pollmeier and his family constituted an economic unit, it follows that, independently of the application of the two consecutive financial years rule, the beneficiary of the aid exceeded the thresholds laid down by the definition criteria for SMEs, since IWS’s figures should have been taken into account. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments alleging infringement of Article 1(6) of the annex to Recommendation 96/280 are irrelevant. 81 It follows that the first and third pleas in law must be rejected. The second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment as regards circumvention of the definition criteria for SMEs 82 It follows from the Court’s examination of the first and third pleas in law that the question of any misapplication of the criteria for defining SMEs is irrelevant. As the defendant was entitled to find, without committing an error of law or a manifest error of assessment, that the various companies held by Mr Pollmeier and his family constituted an economic unit which could not be regarded as an SME, it follows that it is not necessary to consider whether there was any such misapplication. 83 In the light of the foregoing, the second plea in law should also be rejected and therefore the action as a whole should be dismissed. Costs 84 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the other party’s pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs in accordance with the form of order sought by the defendant. On those grounds, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs. Legal Tiili Meij Vilaras Forwood Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 14 October 2004. H. Jung H. Legal Registrar President 1 – Language of the case: German.