Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2009:387
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: General;Commission discretion
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Action brought on 21 January 2006 - Germany v Commission (Case T-21/06) Language of the case: German Parties Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents, assisted by G. Quardt, lawyer) Defendant: Commission of the European Communities Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul Commission Decision C(2005) 3903 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. In support of its action the applicant submits, in particular, that the aid granted is compatible with the common market and complains that the Commission made numerous errors of judgment and assessment in its application of Article 87(3)(c) EC. Instead of carrying out an assessment under Article 87(3)(c) EC, the defendant used a new method of assessment of market failure which, in the way it was carried out, was not suitable to determine the compatibility or incompatibility of the aid with the common market. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission did not carry out an adequate assessment under Article 87(3)(b) EC of the compatibility of the aid granted. In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed general principles of law. It complains that the principle of sound administration and the principle of the right to be heard were infringed. ____________