Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 25 February 2009 - Gråhundbus v/Jørgen Andersen v Commission

(Case T-87/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gråhundbus v/Jørgen Andersen (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: M. Nissen, J. Rivas de Andrés, J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul the definitive position of the Commission concerning the Copenhagen-Ystad route contained in paragraphes 75, 76 and 145 of the Decision of the Commission dated 10 September 2008 with regard to State Aid case C 41/08 (NN 35/08) - Danske Statsbaner;

in the alternative, annul the decision of the Commission dated 10 September 2008 with regard to State Aid case C 41/08 (NN 35/08) - Danske Statsbaner;

order that the Commission pay the cost incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission decision of 10 September 2008 to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC in respect of the State aid allegedly granted by Denmark to Danske Statsbaner ("DSB") for rail passenger transport between Copenhagen and Ystad through the public service contracts between Danish Ministry of Transport and the public enterprise DSB (Case C 41/08 (NN 35/08) - Danske Statsbaner). Interested parties were invited to submit their comments¹.

The applicant operates bus passenger transport on the route Copenhagen-Ystad.

In support of its application, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.

First, it claims that the Commission erred in law when deciding that the Danish government did not incur in a manifest error of appreciation when considering that the Copenhagen-Ystad route constituted a public service or service of general economic interest.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law when it did not raise doubts with regard to the qualification of the Copenhagen-Ystad route as public service obligation or a service of general economic interest or a public service in view of the information in its possession. It argues that the Commission should not have accepted the arguments submitted by the Danish government without further debate or examination.

Third, the applicant contends that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasoning to its decision in violation of its obligation under Article 253 EC as the only reasoning provided in the decision consists in repeating the arguments of the Danish government.

____________

¹ - OJ 2008 C 309, p. 14