CELEX: C2006/048/80
Language: en
Date: 2006-02-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-455/05: Action brought on  29 December 2005  — Componenta Oyj v Commission of the European Communities

25.2.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 48/42
            
         Action brought on 29 December 2005 — Componenta Oyj v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-455/05)
   (2006/C 48/80)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Componenta Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: M. Savola, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul Commission Decision C(2005) 3871 final of 20 October 2005 on State aid granted by Finland to Componenta as investment aid;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs with interest.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The action concerns Commission Decision C(2005) 3871 final of 20 October 2005 finding that the Finnish State had granted Componenta State aid prohibited under Article 87 EC (aid No C 37/2004, ex NN 51/2004).
   The Commission considered that the aid had been granted in the context of an arrangement in two parts in which, first, Componenta sold its holding (50 %) in the property investment company Karkkilan Keskustakiinteistöt Oy to the municipality of Karkkila, which already owned 50 % of that company, and, second, the property investment company repaid Componenta the shareholder's loan invested in that company. At the same time the municipality of Karkkila invested in the company a new additional loan in the same amount.
   According to the Commission, the State aid consists of both the purchase price and the repayment of the shareholder's loan.
   The applicant refers inter alia to the following points in support of its application:
   The Commission's decision is incorrect and unlawful in its entirety as regards both its grounds and its amount. The applicant claims that the Commission committed a breach of essential procedural requirements and an abuse of discretion, since it made a manifestly wrong assessment of the evidence put to it during the investigative procedure. The applicant also submits that the Commission's decision is contrary to the provisions of Article 87 EC on State aid. It further asserts that the conclusion of the decision is unreasonable with respect to it and in breach of the principle of proportionality laid down in the third paragraph of Article 5 EC.
   The applicant submits that the Commission applied the wrong procedure when assessing the value of the shares in the property investment company which were the subject of the transaction. The applicant claims, contrary to the Commission's view, that the value of the subject of the transaction was assessed in accordance with market conditions at the time of the transaction.
   As regards the shareholder's loan arrangement, the applicant submits that no economic advantage accrued to it as a result of the arrangement. In its view, the Commission wrongly assessed the nature and significance of the arrangement. In addition, the reasons stated in the Commission's decision concerning the shareholder's loan arrangement are in the applicant's view unclear and defective.
   Finally, the applicant alleges that the Commission's decision conflicts with the practice it followed in other State aid cases and does not correspond to the principles set out in the Commission's communication to the Member States on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EEC Treaty and of Article 5 of Commission Directive 80/723/EEC to public undertakings in the manufacturing sector. (1)
   
   As regards the investment clause in the sale contract, the applicant submits that the Commission assessed that clause and its significance incorrectly.
   
      (1)  OJ 1993 C 307, 13.11.1993, p. 3.