CELEX: 62015TN0598
Language: en
Date: 2015-10-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-598/15: Action brought on 21 October 2015 — Stichting Accolade v Commission

7.12.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 406/42
            
         Action brought on 21 October 2015 — Stichting Accolade v Commission
   (Case T-598/15)
   (2015/C 406/44)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Stichting Accolade (Drachten, Netherlands) (represented by: H. de Boer and J. Abma, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the European Commission of 30 June 2015, reference C(2015) 4411 final, State Aid SA.34676 (2015/NN) — The Netherlands (Alleged sale of land at below market price by the municipality of Harlingen);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly limited the applicant’s objection to a small section of the total land transaction between the municipality of Harlingen and Ludinga VG.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to apply, or wrongly applied, the private-investor test. The Commission, it is submitted, wrongly used a range of EUR 14 to EUR 24 in assessing the land transaction.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging that the information and assumptions underlying the prices which formed the range used by the Commission are incompatible with one another. As a result, the applicant contends, the transactions used as a reference are not comparable to the contested transaction.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging that an erroneous price was applied to the range.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the alleged facts concerning the indirect advantages.
            
         
               6.
            
            
               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission drew an inaccurate conclusion with regard to the measure contested by the applicant.