Appeal brought on 28 May 2015 by Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 17 March 2015 in Case T-89/09 Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

(Case C-246/15P)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: J. Heithecker, J. Ylinen, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Land Hessen

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

annul paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal, in so far as it dismissed the third plea in law relating to the investment grant and the sale of public land;

annul paragraphs 3 to 5 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

order the Commission and the Land Hessen to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

In addition, the appellant’s requests made at first instance should be granted in so far as it claims that the Court should:

annul Commission Decision C(2008)6017 final of     21 October 2008, State aid No 512/2007 — Germany, Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH, in so far as it found that the notified regional aid is an existing aid within the meaning of Article 1(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999;

annul Commission Decision C(2008)6017 final of     21 October 2008, State aid No 512/2007 — Germany, Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH, in so far as it found that the sale of public land does not amount to aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC;

order the Commission to pay all the costs at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present proceedings concern the conditions under which the Commission may reject a complaint concerning State aid brought by a direct competitor of the recipient of the aid, without opening the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU.

The appellant claims that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court should have upheld the third plea in law, which complained that the investigation procedure was not opened, not only — as happened in that proceedings — in relation to the contested aid measure in the form of guarantees, but also in relation to the further contested aid measures and the sale of public land.

The appellant puts forward five grounds of appeal:

The General Court wrongly held in relation to the investment grant that the decision of 6 December 2007 is irrelevant for the purposes of assessing the third plea in law since the Commission could not have known about the existence of that decision despite carrying out a successful detailed examination during the administrative procedure, and in addition that decision could not have had any impact on the result of the Commission’s examination.

The General Court made a manifest error of assessment and committed several further errors of law in so far as it held that the expert report regarding the value of the public land put at the disposal of the aid recipient affects the expert opinion that the buildings on the land have no value.

The General Court erred in law in so far as it held that the Commission was correct to assume that the amount of EUR 1 400 000, which was deducted from the price of the land as evaluated by the expert report, corresponded to the market price for the demolition of all the buildings situated on the land transferred to the aid recipient.

The General Court made several errors of law in the examination of Paragraph 4(6) of the contract for the sale of the land, which provides that the aid recipient must demolish all the buildings situated on the land and must pay back payments to the seller of the land in the event that, within 10 years of the transfer thereof, the demolition is incomplete or that the ordinary costs of demolition are below the stated amount of EUR 1 400 000.

The General Court wrongly ordered the appellant to pay part of the costs of the proceedings, because the action was upheld with respect to three of the five contested aid measures and, with respect to the other two contested aid measures, the appellant only brought an action against them because neither the documents produced to it during the administrative procedure nor the Commission decision contained detailed information concerning those measures.

____________