Case T-120/07: Action brought on 16 April 2007 — MB Immobilien and MB System v Commission
Date: 2007-06-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, State aid, action for annulment (EU), aid system, two-wheeled vehicle

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/29

In their second plea in law, the applicants criticise the Commis-
sion for having infringed Article 81 EC and, in particular, the
legal rules relating to the imputation of liability for an infringe-
ment, by holding AREVA T&D SA, and AREVA T&D AG liable
for the anti-competitive practices preceding their transfer by
ALSTOM SA, when it had held that those companies were not
independent of ALSTOM before being transferred.

Action brought on 16 April 2007 — MB Immobilien and
MB System v Commission

(Case T-120/07)

(2007/C 140/50)

Language of the case: German

The applicants' third plea in law alleges infringement of Article
81 EC in that the Commission imputed to AREVA SA and
AREVA T&D HOLDING SA liability for anti-competitive prac-
tices attributed to their direct or indirect subsidiaries AREVA
T&D SA and AREVA T&D AG, when, in the applicants' submis-
it had not shown that AREVA SA and AREVA T&D
sion,
HOLDING SA effectively controlled those subsidiaries during
the infringement period.

Parties

Applicant(s): MB Immobilien Verwaltungs GmbH (established in
Neukirch/Lausitz, Germany) and MB System GmbH & Co. KG
represented by: G.
(established in Nordhausen, Germany),
Brüggen, Rechtsanwalt.

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

The fourth and fifth pleas in law allege infringement of Articles
7 EC and 81 EC and relate, in particular, to the rules concerning
the joint and several liability for the infringement. The appli-
cants claim out that the Commission could not find AREVA
T&D SA and ALSTOM SA jointly liable to pay the fine since
they do not form an economic unit and such a joint sanction
constitutes an unlawful delegation of the Commission's power
to impose sanctions and also an infringement of the general
principles of equal treatment, legal certainty and effective judi-
cial protection.

In the sixth plea in law, the applicants criticise the contested
decision for having misapplied the concept of ringleader and
thus infringed Article 81 EC and also the Guidelines on the
method of setting fines (1) and several general principles of law.

In their last plea in law, the applicants claim that the Commis-
sion made an error of assessment as regards the extent of the
cooperation provided by the applicants during the investigation,
in breach of Article 81 EC and the guidelines regarding coopera-
tion set out in the Notice on immunity from fines and reduction
of fines in cartel cases (2).

(1) OJ C 9 of 14.1.1998, p. 3
(2) OJ C 45 of 19.2.2002, p. 3

Form of order sought

— Annulment of

the Commission's Decision K(2007) 130
endg. of 24 January 2007 on State Aid No C 38/2005 (ex
NN 52/2004) of Germany to the Biria-Gruppe

— the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants challenge the Commission's Decision K(2007)
130 endg. of 24 January 2007, in which it decided that state
aid by Germany, encompassing three measures in favour of Bike
Systems GmbH & Co Thüringer Zweiradwerk KG, Sachsen
Zweirad GmbH and Biria GmbH (subsequently Biria AG) was
incompatible with the common market.

The first applicant is the legal successor of Biria AG, the second
of Bike Systems GmbH & Co Thüringer Zweiradwerk DG. The
they are directly and individually
applicants
concerned by the contested decision.

argue

that

In support of their action, the applicants argue first that Com-
munity law has been infringed through defective interpretation
of an approved aid regulation. In that context, they argue that
the Commission failed to use as the basis of its decision the
definition of an undertaking in difficulties which is contained in
the aid regulation which it approved.

The Commission further infringed Community law through
misassessment of
the evidence. The applicants argue that,
contrary to what the Commission maintains, the undertakings
concerned by the contested decision were not undertakings in
difficulty at the time the aid was granted.

The applicants further argue that Community law has been
infringed by serious errors in the statement of reasons.