CELEX: C2007/129/31
Language: en
Date: 2007-06-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-102/07: Action brought on 5 April 2007 — Freistaat Sachsen v Commission of the European Communities

9.6.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 129/18
            
         Action brought on 5 April 2007 — Freistaat Sachsen v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-102/07)
   (2007/C 129/31)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Freistaat Sachsen (Germany) (represented by C. von Donat and G. Quardt, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               annul Commission Decision C(2007) 130 final of 24 January 2007 relating to State aid No C 38/2005 (formerly NN 52/2004) from Germany to the Biria Group in so far as it relates to what the decision terms measures 2 and 3, and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2007) 130 final of 24 January 2007 in which the Commission held that the three measures comprising State aid from Germany for the benefit of Bike Systems GmbH & Co., Thüringer Zweiradwerk KG, Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria GmbH (now Biria AG) is incompatible with the common market.
   The applicant claims that it is directly and individually concerned by the Commission's decision, because measures 2 and 3, which relate to guarantees in favour of Sachsen Zweirad GmbH and Biria GmbH (now Biria AG), were granted by it from its own resources on the basis of the guarantee guidelines of the Freistaat Sachsen.
   In support of its claim, the applicant claims, first, that there was an infringement of Community law by reason of an incorrect interpretation of an approved aid measure. In that regard, the applicant claims that the defendant misconstrued the corresponding definition in the approved aid measure so as to treat the undertakings concerned as undertakings in financial difficulties. Since, in the applicant's opinion, that was not the case, measures 2 and 3 relate to approved aid.
   In addition, the applicant claims that the defendant wrongly assessed the factual position in proceeding on the basis that the undertakings concerned were undertakings in financial difficulties.
   Lastly, the applicant alleges that the contested decision fails to state adequate reasons.