CELEX: 62009TN0116
Language: en
Date: 2009-03-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-116/09: Action brought on 24 March 2009 — Whirlpool Europe v Commission

16.5.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 113/42
            
         Action brought on 24 March 2009 — Whirlpool Europe v Commission
   (Case T-116/09)
   2009/C 113/85
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Whirlpool Europe BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: F.Tuytschaever, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision in its entirety on account of the fact that one or more of the (cumulative) conditions of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty are not met or that, in any event, the Commission has failed to ascertain to the requisite legal standard that each of such conditions is met;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in subsidiary order, annul the decision in its entirety on account of the failure to comply with the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5995 final of 21 October 2008 declaring compatible with the common market the restructuring aid to be paid out by the French authorities to FagorBrandt company, subject to a number of conditions [C 44/2007 (ex N 460/2007)]. The applicant is a competitor to the beneficiary of the aid and has participated in the investigation procedure leading to the adoption of the contested decision.
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-115/09 Electrolux v Commission.