Case T-531/25: Action brought on 1 August 2025 – Merkur Spielbanken NRW v Commission
Date: 2025-08-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, North Rhine-Westphalia, State aid, aid to undertakings, capital increase, company in difficulties, control of State aid, gaming establishment, principle of proportionality, reimbursement of aid








C_202504986EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4986


22.9.2025






Action brought on 1 August 2025 – Merkur Spielbanken NRW v Commission


(Case T-531/25)

(C/2025/4986)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Merkur Spielbanken NRW GmbH (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and D. Salm, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Article 2 of the contested decision, (1) which declares the 2015 capital injection of EUR 64.8 million put into effect by Germany to be in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU and incompatible with the internal market;










—


Annul Articles 3 to 5 of the contested decision, which require Germany to recover the aid in the amount of EUR 64.8 million referred to in Article 2 together with interest;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU






—


First part: manifest error of assessment in the finding of an advantage
First, the defendant wrongly viewed the capital injection in isolation from the sale of the artworks. Second, the defendant misapplied the criterion of the market economy investor principle (MEIP). Third, the defendant failed to recognise that the capital injection compensated for structural disadvantages under Paragraph 14(1) of the Spielbankgesetz NRW (Law on gambling in North Rhine-Westphalia) (SpielbG NRW) of 2012. Fourth, the defendant ignored the fact that there was no advantage also because the same economic result could have been achieved by changing national legislation. Fifth, the defendant failed to assess whether the ex-ante possibility of a future increase in value of WestSpiel precluded the existence of an advantage.










—


Second part: in finding State or State-controlled resources, the defendant made a manifest error of assessment, since the capital injection did not consist of such resources.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (2) and breach of the principle of proportionality






—


First part: manifest error of assessment in determining the addressee of the order for recovery
The defendant failed to recognise that, because of the sale of WestSpiel at market price, the seller (not WestSpiel) was the sole beneficiary of the alleged aid.










—


Second part: manifest error of assessment in determining the amount to be recovered
The defendant ignored the fact that WestSpiel had already repaid the capital injection in 2021 in the amount of EUR 46.5 million.














3.


Third plea in law
The defendant misused its powers under Article 107(3) TFEU in that it failed properly to examine whether the capital injection was privatisation aid and the conditions for approval were satisfied.










4.


Fourth plea in law
The defendant acted in breach of the principle of good administration in that it failed to examine the capital injection in the light of the principles of independence, proportionality, consistency, impartiality and objectivity.










5.


Fifth plea in law
The defendant infringed essential procedural requirements in that it failed at a number of points to give comprehensible reasons for its decision.






(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2025/906 of 22 November 2024 on State aid SA.48580 (2017/C) implemented by Germany for WestSpiel (OJ L 2025/906).

(2)  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).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4986/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)