Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 5 September 2008 - Csepeli Áramtermelő v Commission

(Case T-370/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Csepeli Áramtermelő kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. Máttyus, K. Ferenczi, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, T. Franchoo, and D. Fessenko, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul the decision in so far as it identifies Csepel as a beneficiary of State aid that is considered to be incompatible with the common market, and in so far as the decision orders Hungary to recover this alleged State aid, including interest, from Csepel; and

To order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant requests the annulment of Commission Decision C (2008)2223 final, of 4 June 2008 (Case C 41/2005 - Hungarian stranded costs), in so far as it identifies the applicant as a beneficiary of State aid that is considered to be incompatible with the common market, and in so far as the decision orders Hungary to recover the alleged State aid, including interest, from the applicant.

The applicant claims that the Commission failed to evidence and appropriately justify its conclusion that the power purchase agreement ("PPA") concluded between the applicant - owner of a power generation facility in Hungary ultimately acquired by Atel AG - and the Hungarian state-owned electricity wholesaler, Magyar Villamos Muvek Rt. ("MVM"), constitutes incompatible State aid. In support of its claims, the applicant raises the following pleas in law:

In its first plea, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 253 EC and Article 87(1) EC by failing to state reasons and by making a manifest error of assessment in finding that the applicant's PPA conferred an economic advantage to the applicant.

In its second plea, the applicant submits that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that the applicant's PPA distorts competition.

In its third plea, the applicant contends that the Commission infringed the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, in that the recovery obligation is unjustified in the specific circumstances of the case on the basis of general principles of Community law. In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment regarding the methodology that it applied in order to calculate the amounts to be recovered.

____________