Case T-319/11: Action brought on 14 June 2011 — ABN AMRO Group v Commission
Date: 2011-06-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, bank, company in difficulties, control of State aid








C_2011252EN.01003501.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/35





Action brought on 14 June 2011 — ABN AMRO Group v Commission
(Case T-319/11)
2011/C 252/80
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ABN AMRO Group NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: W. Knibbeler and P. van den Berg, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul article 5 of the Commission Decision of 5 April 2011 on the measures No C 11/2009 (ex NN 53b/2008, NN 2/2010 and N 19/2010) implemented by Dutch State for ABN AMRO Group NV; and










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested Decision’s findings in relation to the scope of the acquisition ban contained in article 5, are vitiated by the following errors of law and must therefore be annulled:






—


Infringement of article 107(3)(b) TFEU and misapplication of the principles and guidelines set out in the Commission’s Communications (1);










—


Infringement of the principle of proportionality by making the approval of the aid measures conditional upon an acquisition ban which is not adequate, necessary or proportionate;










—


Infringement of the principle of equal treatment by imposing an acquisition ban which is significantly stricter compared to acquisition bans imposed by the Commission in other cases;










—


Infringement of the principle of sound administration as a result of not examining carefully and individually all relevant aspects of the individual case, including the need for and consequences of the acquisition ban as imposed through the Decision, and infringement of article 296 TFEU resulting from a failure to provide adequate reasoning for the said Decision.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Decision’s findings in relation to the duration of the acquisition ban contained in article 5, are vitiated by the following errors of law and of assessment and must therefore be annulled:






—


Infringement of article 345 TFEU by making the duration of the acquisition ban dependent upon State ownership;










—


Infringement of article 107(3)(b) TFEU and misapplication of the principles and guidelines set out in the Commission’s Communications (2);










—


Infringement of the principle of equal treatment by imposing an acquisition ban which has a significant longer duration compared to acquisition bans imposed by the Commission in other cases;










—


Infringement of the principles of proportionality and sound administration.










(1)  Communication from the Commission on the application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis (OJ 2008 C 270, p. 8); Communication from the Commission on the recapitalization of financial institutions in the current financial crisis: limitation of aid to the minimum necessary and safeguards against undue distortions of competition (OJ 2009 C 10, p. 2); Communication from the Commission on the treatment of impaired assets in the community banking sector (OJ 2009 C 72, p. 1); Communication from the Commission on the return to viability and the assessment of restructuring measures in the financial sector in the current crisis under the state aid rules (OJ 2009 C 195 p. 9).

(2)  See footnote 1