Action brought on 26 March 2007 - EREF v Commission

(Case T-94/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Renewable Energies Federation (EREF) ASBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Fouquet, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The decision K(2006) 4963 final of the European Commission, dating from 24 October 2006, is declared null and void;

the Financial Vehicle in question in its present shape and structure is declared unlawful state aid.

Alternatively, the Commission is ordered to open a formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC for Case NN 62/B/2006.

The European Commission is ordered to pay all procedural costs, including the costs of the claimant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In 2004 the applicant filed a complaint with the Commission claiming among others that different aspects of the financement of a new nuclear power plant under construction in Finland was state aid that had not been notified. In 2006, the Commission split the file into two cases numbered NN 62/A/2006 and NN 62/B/2006.

In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4963 final, which concerns state aid Case NN 62/B/2006, by which the Commission found that a credit facility granted by a consortium of five banks and a loan granted by AB Svensk Exportkredit ('SEK') did not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.

The applicant submits that the Commission's split of the file into two separate cases is unlawful from a procedural as well as a substantive point of view. According to the applicant, it was only possible to give the credit facility and the loan at such a low interest rate because of a guarantee from the French export credit insurance agency COFACE. However, the state aid aspects of COFACE's involvement were dealt with under Case NN 62/A/2006. The applicant therefore claims that the splitting up of the file into two separate cases thus taking the guarantee element out of Case NN 62/B/2006 lead the Commission to the misunderstanding that the granting of the credit facility and the SEK loan at such a low interest rate could not constitute state aid simply because the participating banks were, according to the Commission, privately owned.

Moreover, the applicant submits that even disregarding the guarantee from COFACE the credit facility as well as the loan granted by SEK constitutes state aid since:

the credit facility was granted at a low interest rate with the participation of the banks BLB and BNP Paribas, which the applicant alleges are both public banks; and

the loan from SEK was given by a 100% state owned bank at an interest rate below market conditions.

Finally, the applicant invokes a lack of reasoning and a manifest error of assessment.

____________