CELEX: 62010TN0137
Language: en
Date: 2010-03-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-137/10: Action brought on 17 March 2010 — Coordination bruxelloise d'Institutions sociales et de santé (CBI) v European Commission

5.6.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 148/38
            
         Action brought on 17 March 2010 — Coordination bruxelloise d'Institutions sociales et de santé (CBI) v European Commission
   (Case T-137/10)
   2010/C 148/64
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Coordination bruxelloise d’Institutions sociales et de santé (CBI) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, avocat, and D. Slater, solicitor)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the defendant of 28 October 2009 declaring compatible with the common market on the basis of Article 86(2) EC unlawful State aid granted by Belgium to certain public hospitals in the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Region of Brussels — Capital) and dismissing the applicant’s complaint;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   By way of the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8120 final COR of 28 December 2009, declaring compatible with the common market all the funding granted by the Belgian authorities to the public hospitals belonging to the IRIS network in the Région Bruxelles-Capitale, by way of compensation for hospital and non-hospital services they provide in the form of services of general economic interest (SGEI) (State aid NN 54/2009 (ex-CP 244/2005)).
   In support of its action, the applicant submits that the Commission’s decision contains manifest errors of assessment or, at least, provides very inadequate reasons.
   The applicant submits in particular that the Commission’s claim that there is no need to examine the efficiency of the aid beneficiary, for example by comparing it to a ‘typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided for’, when examining the State aid in the light of Article 86(2) EC, allows Member State to cover all the costs of an undertaking charged with public service duties, irrespective of how exorbitant or disproportionate those may be, and thus must be rejected.
   The applicant submits that, in order to avoid any distortion of competition on the market, compensation for carrying out public service duties should be limited to what is strictly necessary compared to the costs that an efficient operator would have incurred, which is not the case in the present case.