Case T-678/24: Action brought on 20 December 2024 – Georgsmarienhütte Holding v Commission
Date: 2024-12-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, aid to industry, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, furnace








C_202501238EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1238


3.3.2025






Action brought on 20 December 2024 – Georgsmarienhütte Holding v Commission


(Case T-678/24)

(C/2025/1238)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Georgsmarienhütte Holding GmbH (Georgsmarienhütte, Germany) (represented by: J. Reichert, K. Fischer and S. Gröss, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission of 19 December 2023 on state aid SA.105337 – Germany (not published in the OJ);










—


in the alternative, annul the decision of the Commission of 19 December 2023 on state aid SA.105337 – Germany (not published in the OJ) in so far as it concerns the subsidy from the Federal Republic of Germany to Saarstahl AG in the amount of EUR 813 690 300,00 and to Aktiengesellschaft der Dillinger Hüttenwerke in the amount of EUR 637 524 600,00;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law: with its decision not to raise objections under Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (1) the Commission erred in law in failing to adopt a decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure under pursuant to Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589. The Commission thereby infringed the applicant’s procedural rights. There were in fact doubts as to the compatibility of the aid with the common market as regards the presence of an incentive effect, in particular concerning the construction of Saarstahl AG’s electric arc furnace, the compatibility with the public interest of the restrictions of competition and the excessive nature of the effects on the relevant markets.










2.


Second plea in law: the defendant incorrectly exercised the discretion conferred on it by Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, in that it misapplied its own guidelines on the assessment of climate, environment and energy aid. The aid measures, in particular the aid in favour of Saarstahl AG and Aktiengesellschaft der Dillinger Hüttenwerke, did not meet the requirements laid down in the guidelines.










3.


Third plea in law: the defendant, in breach of its obligations under Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, failed to examine whether the three individual aid measures in favour of Saarstahl AG, Aktiengesellschaft der Dillinger Hüttenwerke and ROGESA Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH, which amount to a total of EUR 2.6 billion, individually met the respective conditions for authorisation. Instead, it examined all three aid measures on a cumulative basis, without consideration for the individual circumstances of the various subsidised projects.










4.


Fourth plea in law: the defendant failed to investigate the material facts of the case adequately. It thereby infringed the applicant’s right to good administration under Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. (2)











5.


Fifth plea in law: the defendant infringed the applicant’s legal obligation under the second paragraph of Article 29 TFEU to provide a statement of reasons for its decision.






(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).

(2)  
            OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1238/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)