Action brought on 23 July 2012 - Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-325/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, J. Langer and M. de Ree, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the Commission's decision of 11 May 2012 with reference SG-Greffe (2012) D/3150 in Case SA.28855 (N 373/2009) (ex C 10/2009 and N 528/2009 - Netherlands/ING - restructuring aid);

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of the defence and the principle of due care.

The applicant submits that the Commission was not entitled to adopt the contested decision without affording the Netherlands the opportunity of expressing its views on the grounds on which the Commission comes to the conclusion in the decision that the Netherlands granted aid to ING by agreeing to amended repayment terms.

In the alternative, the Commission infringed the principle of due care by adopting the decision without taking account of the arguments put forward by the Netherlands in the earlier proceedings before the General Court which led to the judgment of 2 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-29/10 and T-33/10, and in which the Court concurred with those arguments.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU.

The applicant submits that the decision is incompatible with Article 107 TFEU, because in point 213 of that decision the Commission stated on incorrect grounds that the amendment of the repayment terms involves State aid.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, the Rules of Procedure and Article 266 TFEU.

The applicant submits that the Commission has not implemented correctly the General Court's judgment of 2 March 2012, and has infringed Article 107 TFEU, the Rules of Procedure and Article 266 TFEU because, in the decision, it made approval of the capital injection subject to the same compensatory measures as in the earlier decision of 2009 (which the General Court annulled in its decision of 2 March 2012), although the Commission estimated that the aid is EUR 2 billion lower than the previous amount.

____________