CELEX: 62012TN0545
Language: en
Date: 2012-12-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-545/12: Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Mory and Others v Commission

9.3.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 71/23
            
         Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Mory and Others v Commission
   (Case T-545/12)
   2013/C 71/36
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Mory SA (Pantin, France); Mory Team (Pantin) and Compagnie française superga d’investissement dans le service (CFSIS) (Miraumont, France) (represented by: B. Vatier and F. Loubières, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the Commission Decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law in support of their action against Commission Decision C(2012) 2401 final of 4 April 2012, by which the Commission states that the obligation imposed on the Sernam companies to repay State aid by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2012) 1616 final of 9 March 2012 does not extend to the potential purchasers of the assets of the Sernam Group. (1)
   
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission lacked the powers to adopt the contested decision and thus a misuse of powers, since the Commission is not competent to adopt a decision finding that the procedure adopted to execute the decision of 9 March 2012 does not constitute a circumvention of that procedure without a fresh in-depth investigation.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to apply the formal investigation procedure when verifying State aid in the event of serious concerns.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging inconsistent subject-matter and reasons inasmuch as, firstly, the subject-matter of the decision referred to by the Commission and the actual content thereof do not equate to each other and, secondly, the decision applies contradictory criteria to assess the absence of economic continuity between the aided activities and the purchaser of those activities.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment as regards (i) the object of the sale, (ii) the transfer price, (iii) the moment when the transfer was effected, (iv) the degree of independence of the new owners and shareholders and (v) the economic logic of the transaction.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging a lack of legal basis, inasmuch as the decision was adopted without it being ascertained that the transfer of the assets was made at their market value and without a study of the consequences of the fact that the purchaser belongs to the same group as that which distributed the unlawful aid.
            
         
      (1)  State aid No SA.34547 (2012/N) — France, in the notice to the Official Journal of the European Union
      OJ 2012 C 305, p. 10.