Case T-27/11: Action brought on 21 January 2011 — Rheinischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission
Date: 2011-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, State aid, action for annulment (EU), banking system, control of State aid








C_2011072EN.01002902.xml










5.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/29





Action brought on 21 January 2011 — Rheinischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission
(Case T-27/11)
2011/C 72/47
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Rheinischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld and I. Liebach, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


partially annul the Commission’s decision of 21 December 2010, C(2010) 9525 final, State aid, MC 8/2009 and C-43/2009 — Germany — WestLB, in so far as it rejected the application made by Germany on 28 October 2010 seeking to extend beyond 15 February 2011 the time-limit for the sale and disposal of the new operations of Westdeutsche Immobilienbank AG;










—


in the alternative, partially annul the Commission’s decision of 21 December 2010, C(2010) 9525 final, State aid, MC 8/2009 and C-43/2009 — Germany — West LB, in so far the Commission thereby implicitly decided that Germany had lodged only one single application seeking to extend up to 15 February 2011 the time-limit for the sale and disposal of the new operations of Westdeutsche Immobilienbank AG and, accordingly, that no decision on a further extension beyond that date was required;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant puts forward five pleas in law in support of its action.
1.   First plea in law: breach of the obligation to give reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU
The applicant submits in this respect that the Commission has not explained why it combined two applications submitted by Germany for an extension of the time-limit into one single application.
The Commission has also not explained why the conditions for an extension of the time-limit under Article 2(2) of Commission Decision C(2009) 3900 final, corrected on 12 May 2009, on State aid which Germany seeks to grant in favour of restructuring WestLB AG (C-43/2008 [N 390/2008] (‘the decision of 12 May 2009’), are not met.
2.   Second plea in law: errors of assessment and appraisal
The applicant submits in this connection that, in relation to the grant of an extension of the time-limit, the Commission based its discretionary decision on an incorrect finding of fact. In the applicant’s opinion, the contested decision wrongly presupposes that the extension of the time-limit was requested only up to 15 February 2011, or implicitly finds that it was no longer necessary to decide on a further application for a longer period.
The applicant also argues that the Commission made no use of the option to extend the time-limit expressly provided for in Article 2(2) of the decision of 12 May 2009, notwithstanding the fact that the conditions for so doing were met. Instead, the Commission relied on an unwritten sui generis right of extension which has no legal basis and the specific conditions of which are utterly vague.
3.   Third plea in law: infringement of the principle of proportionality
In this respect the applicant contends, inter alia, that the Commission’s decision on the cessation of the new operations of Westdeutsche Immobilienbank AG after 15 February 2011 is disproportionate to the disadvantages resulting from such cessation.
4.   Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of equal treatment
In this context the applicant maintains that, in other cases linked to the financial crisis, in which financial institutions were granted much greater aid, the Commission granted significantly longer time-limits for the sale of holdings and also property financing companies.
5.   Fifth plea in law: breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the principle of sound administration
In the context of the fifth plea in law, the applicant claims that the Commission does not have the right to interpret and take a decision on applications made by a Member State in a manner which is at variance with their express wording, meaning and purpose.