Action brought on 20 February 2013 - Whirlpool Europe v Commission

(Case T-118/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Whirlpool Europe BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: F. Wijckmans and H. Burez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the Decision of the Commission of 25 July 2012 relating to the State aid of France to the benefit of the FagorBrandt company [SA.23839 n° C44/2007];

Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission decision of 25 July 2012 relating to State aid of France to the benefit of the FagorBrandt company [SA.23839 n° C44/2007].

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

First plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty. The applicant submits that the holding of the decision is incorrect as a matter of law on account of the fact that one or more of the (cumulative) conditions of the abovementioned guidelines is not met or that, in any event, the Commission has failed to ascertain to the requisite legal standard that each of such conditions is met. The arguments advanced to underscore this plea relate to the failure to comply with (i) the duty to assess one or more of the conditions of the aforementioned guidelines as at the date of the decision; (ii) the "one time, last time" condition; (iii) the condition that restructuring aid may not serve to keep firms artificially alive; (iv) the conditions as to the assessment of previous unlawful aid; (v) the condition that the beneficiary of the aid must be a firm in difficulty; (vi) the condition that the beneficiary of the aid should not be a newly created firm; (vii) the condition that the restructuring plan must restore the long-term viability of the beneficiary; (viii) the condition of imposing compensatory measures to avoid undue distortions resulting from the restructuring aid; and (ix) the condition that the aid must be limited to the minimum and that a real contribution (free of aid) must be made by the business group.

Second plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU on several items. The applicant in particular submits that the decision fails to state adequate reasons with respect to (i) the condition of imposing compensatory measures to avoid undue distortions resulting from the restructuring aid, and (ii) the repayment obligation of previous unlawful aid.

____________