Order — ECLI:EU:T:2025:497
Date: 2025-05-14
Language of the case: Estonian
Court formation: President of the Chamber
Subject matter: State aids;Competition
Procedure: Action for annulment;Application for interim measures;Application for interim measures - unfounded
Origin: Estonia

Action brought on 24 January 2025 – Tartu Agro v Commission (Case T-59/25) Language of the case: Estonian Parties Applicant: Tartu Agro AS (Tartu, Estonia) (represented by: T. Järviste, M.A. Rohtla, L. Hääl and B. Koppel, lawyers) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: declare the application admissible; annul in its entirety the decision of the European Commission of 25 November 2024 on State aid SA.39182 (2017/C) (ex 2017/NN) (ex 2014/CP), which concerns the grant of alleged illegal aid to Tartu Agro (‘the Decision’); order the Commission to pay the costs, including the applicant’s costs. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law. First plea in law, alleging that the application is admissible. The application is admissible since, according to the Decision, the applicant is an alleged recipient of State aid. Therefore, that decision is of direct and individual concern to the applicant. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission followed neither its own rules on the burden of proof nor the guidance of the Court. In the judgment of 13 July 2022, Tartu Agro v Commission, T-150/20 (EU:T:2022:443), the Court provided guidance to the Commission that ought to have led the Commission to find that there was no State aid, yet the Commission failed to follow that guidance when it adopted the Decision. Third plea in law, alleging that, when assessing whether the rent provided for in the lease agreement was in line with the market price, the Commission fundamentally infringed procedural and substantive rules and erred in its interpretation of the facts. The Commission established the existence of aid on the basis of irrelevant and incomplete data. The Commission erred in its substantive assessment as to whether the rent was in line with the market price. It ought to have established that the investments in land improvement, the costs for land maintenance and the improvement in soil quality were fully included in the lease. The Commission’s basis for comparison was inappropriate. The Commission failed to take account of the temporal context and economic considerations when establishing the rent. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission fundamentally infringed substantive and procedural rules when assessing, on the basis of the call for tenders, whether the transaction was in conformity with market conditions. The Commission wrongly concluded that the call for tenders did not meet the requirements guaranteeing market conditions. The Commission ought to have taken into account the temporal context at the time when the lease agreement was concluded, the economic considerations at that time and the then applicable standards of interpretation. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission fundamentally infringed legal provisions and erred in its assessment of the facts when calculating the advantage. In respect of the year 2004, the Commission incorrectly concluded on the basis of a report from Uus Maa that the price range stated in the report reflected the price trend in that period. In respect of the period from 2005 to 2019, the Commission incorrectly concluded that data from the national authority were to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the basis for comparison of annual market prices. The Commission failed to take account of the fact that 3 061.9 hectares of leased land were largely unavailable for certain purposes. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission fundamentally infringed legal provisions and erred in its assessment of the facts when it categorised the facts as constituting new aid. Any alleged grant or non-grant of aid took place prior to Estonia’s accession to the European Union and had ended completely at the time of accession, following the privatisation of the undertaking in 2001 and the merger of the applicant and the owners of its shares in 2002. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission fundamentally infringed legal provisions and erred in its interpretation of the facts when it considered the aid to be obsolete only in part. The Commission ought to have concluded that the State aid allegedly resulting from the lease agreement had terminated completely in 2002 at the latest with the merger of the applicant and the owners of its shares and is therefore entirely obsolete. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed legal provisions when it required the Republic of Estonia to recover the aid, contrary to the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty. There are special circumstances to the effect that recovery from the applicant would be highly inequitable, as the applicant was not obliged to recognise the existence of State aid. Following Commission Decision C(2020) 252 final of 24 January 2020 on State aid SA.39182 (2017/C) (ex 2017/NN) (ex 2014/CP), the applicant had a legitimate expectation and certainty as to the fact that the amount of the State aid to be recovered would not increase. Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission fundamentally infringed legal provisions and erred in its interpretation of the facts when it categorised the aid as being incompatible with the internal market. The parties demonstrated in substance how the lease agreement contributed to the promotion of economic development; however, the Commission failed to address the substance of that point. ____________