CELEX: C2006/074/54
Language: en
Date: 2006-03-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-6/06: Action brought on  13 January 2006  — Mopro-Nord GmbH v Commission

25.3.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 74/29
            
         Action brought on 13 January 2006 — Mopro-Nord GmbH v Commission
   (Case T-6/06)
   (2006/C 74/54)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Mopro-Nord GmbH (Altentreptow, Germany) (represented by: L. Harings and C.H. Schmidt)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul paragraphs 25 to 27 of the defendant's decision on State aid No N 363/2004 of 6 September 2005 (OJ 2005 C 262, p. 5) in so far as they are based on assertions made by the German authorities that expenditure incurred before the Commission approved this individually notifiable aid, relating to the investment premium (investment subsidy), is not eligible for aid;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, annul the defendant's decision on State aid No N 363/2004 of 6 September 2005 (OJ 2005 C 262, p. 5) in its entirety;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2005) 3310 final of 6 September 2005 relating to State aid No N 363/2005 for the construction of a whey refining plant. The beneficiary of that aid is Mopro-Nord GmbH in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. In the contested decision, the Commission informed the Federal Republic of Germany that the aid notified by it is EC-compatible. The applicant contests the decision in particular in so far as it is based on assertions made by the German authorities that expenditure incurred before the Commission approved this individually notifiable aid, relating to the investment premium (investment subsidy), is not eligible for aid.
   In support of its claim the applicant submits that the defendant's determination of the facts is erroneous. It also complains of a breach of the obligation to give reasons under Article 253 EC and infringement of the principles of legal security and certainty. Moreover, by the contested decision, the Commission has infringed Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) and the principle of sound administration. The contested decision is also in breach of Article 87(3)(c) EC in conjunction with the Community framework for State aid in the agricultural sector (2). Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission's decision infringes the principle of protection of legitimate expectations and the prohibition of discrimination.
   
      (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 (OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1).
   
      (2)  OJ 2000 C 28, p. 2, and OJ 2000 C 232, p. 19.