CELEX: C2007/140/50
Language: en
Date: 2007-06-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-120/07: Action brought on 16 April 2007 — MB Immobilien and MB System v Commission

23.6.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 140/29
            
         Action brought on 16 April 2007 — MB Immobilien and MB System v Commission
   (Case T-120/07)
   (2007/C 140/50)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties
   
      Applicant(s): MB Immobilien Verwaltungs GmbH (established in Neukirch/Lausitz, Germany) and MB System GmbH & Co. KG (established in Nordhausen, Germany), represented by: G. Brüggen, Rechtsanwalt.
   
      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annulment of the Commission's Decision K(2007) 130 endg. of 24 January 2007 on State Aid No C 38/2005 (ex NN 52/2004) of Germany to the Biria-Gruppe
            
         
               —
            
            
               the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants challenge the Commission's Decision K(2007) 130 endg. of 24 January 2007, in which it decided that state aid by Germany, encompassing three measures in favour of Bike Systems GmbH & Co Thüringer Zweiradwerk KG, Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria GmbH (subsequently Biria AG) was incompatible with the common market.
   The first applicant is the legal successor of Biria AG, the second of Bike Systems GmbH & Co Thüringer Zweiradwerk DG. The applicants argue that they are directly and individually concerned by the contested decision.
   In support of their action, the applicants argue first that Community law has been infringed through defective interpretation of an approved aid regulation. In that context, they argue that the Commission failed to use as the basis of its decision the definition of an undertaking in difficulties which is contained in the aid regulation which it approved.
   The Commission further infringed Community law through misassessment of the evidence. The applicants argue that, contrary to what the Commission maintains, the undertakings concerned by the contested decision were not undertakings in difficulty at the time the aid was granted.
   The applicants further argue that Community law has been infringed by serious errors in the statement of reasons.