Case T-582/20: Action brought on 17 September 2020 — Ighoga Region 10 and Others v Commission
Date: 2020-09-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bavaria, Germany, State aid, business tourism, control of State aid, hotel industry








C_2020414EN.01003901.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/39






Action brought on 17 September 2020 — Ighoga Region 10 and Others v Commission
(Case T-582/20)
(2020/C 414/60)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Interessengemeinschaft der Hoteliers und Gastronomen Region 10 e.V. (Ighoga Region 10) (Ingolstadt, Germany), MJ and MK (represented by: A. Bartosch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 28 April 2020 on State aid SA.48582 (2017/FC) — Germany — Alleged State aid in favour of Maritim Group and KHI Immobilien GmbH (Ingolstadt);










—


order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of their procedural rights under Article 1(h) of Regulation No 2015/1589 (1) because the defendant refused to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU.
This single plea is divided into four parts as follows:






1.


First, the applicants allege unsurmountable serious difficulties concerning the direct advantages in favour of Maritim Group in connection with the operation of the Ingolstadt Congress Centre and Hotel because






—


despite specific evidence calling into question the regularity of the tender for the operation of the Ingolstadt Congress Centre, the defendant failed to carry out an independent assessment of this tender;










—


the defendant relied on an unlawful legal standard in the assessment of whether the leasing conditions were appropriate in market terms;










—


in addition, the defendant submitted an inappropriate criterion for the assessment of whether the leasing conditions were appropriate in market terms; and










—


finally, the defendant refused to use a suitable standard for the assessment of appropriateness in market terms.














2.


Second, the applicants allege unsurmountable serious difficulties concerning the direct advantages in favour of Maritim Group, because the defendant completely ignored the complaint and consequently committed numerous factual errors of assessment.










3.


Third, the applicants allege unsurmountable serious difficulties on account of the complete lack of any assessment of the subject matter of the complaint concerning alleged overcompensation of the Ingolstadt Congress Centre’s financing.










4.


Fourth, the applicants allege unsurmountable serious difficulties following an incorrect assessment of the criterion of internationality for the purposes of the law on aid, because






—


the defendant assessed the application of the criteria in relation to the incorrect economic activity;










—


in so doing, it relied on an incorrect legal premiss;










—


it completely ignored the evidence in the complaint in support of its submissions that the criterion of internationality had been fulfilled; and










—


finally, it applied inappropriate and factually incorrect criteria.










(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).