CELEX: 62013TN0190
Language: en
Date: 2013-04-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-190/13: Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Gemeente Leidschendam-Voorburg v Commission

1.6.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 156/49
            
         Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Gemeente Leidschendam-Voorburg v Commission
   (Case T-190/13)
   2013/C 156/91
   Language of the case: Dutch
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Gemeente Leidschendam-Voorburg (Leidschendam-Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: A. de Groot and J.J.M. Sluijs, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the contested decision; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2013) 87 of 23 January 2013 on State aid SA.24123 (2012/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by the Netherlands — Alleged sale of land below market price by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements and/or of the obligation to state reasons.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           In the first place the Commission allowed an unreasonably long period of time to elapse before initiating the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, as a result of which the parties were entitled to assume that the agreement at issue was not incompatible with Article 107(1) TFEU.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           In the second place there were errors and omissions in the Commission’s assessment of the facts.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           In the third place, the Commission erred in its determination of the facts with regard to financing through State resources.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           In the first place the Municipality acted as a private undertaking would have done in the same circumstances.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           In the second place Schouten & De Jong Projectontwikkeling BV together with Bouwfonds Ontwikkeling BV did not obtain any benefit that they would not also have obtained via the market in the ordinary course of business.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, concerning Article 107(3) TFEU. Should the Municipality be found to have granted aid, this should be regarded as being compatible with Article 107(3) TFEU.