CELEX: C2006/096/30
Language: en
Date: 2006-04-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-36/06: Action brought on  26 January 2006  — Bundesverband deutsche Banken e.V. Berlin v Commission of the European Communities

22.4.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 96/15
            
         Action brought on 26 January 2006 — Bundesverband deutsche Banken e.V. Berlin v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-36/06)
   (2006/C 96/30)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Bundesverband deutsche Banken e.V. Berlin (Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer and K.-S. Scholz, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the defendant's decision of 6 September 2005 [C(2005)3232 Final] in Case N 248/04 — Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2005)3232 Final of 6 September 2005, in which the Commission determined that the notified transfer of the special Hessian Investment Fund as silent partnership participation to Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen (‘Helaba’) does not constitute state aid.
   In support of its application, the applicant advances four pleas.
   First, the applicant contends that the Commission has breached the duty to state reasons under Article 253 EC.
   Second, the applicant supports its claim in contending that the defendant, by confirming the appropriateness of the agreed remuneration for the transfer to Helaba, has breached the principle of a private investor in a market economy and, thereby, Article 87(1) EC.
   The applicant further claims that the Commission wrongly deducted the refinancing costs because of the lack of liquidity of the transfer to Helaba. The applicant contends that, for this reason, the Commission has breached the principle of a private investor in a market economy and, thereby, Article 87(1) EC.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the right to a fair hearing has been infringed, on the ground that the Commission failed to open a formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC and Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 in respect of the transfer to Helaba (1).
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty.