Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 20 May 2009 - UOP v Commission

(Case T-198/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UOP Ltd (Brimsdown, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister and O. Geiss, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

annul Article 2(2) of the Commission Decision of 16 July 2008 on the aid measure implemented by France for the IFP Group [C 51/05 (ex NN 84/05)]¹;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision, of 16 July 2008, on the aid measure implemented by France for the Institute Français du Petrol (IFP) Group [C 51/05 (ex NN 84/05)], [notified under number C (2008) 1330] in so far as it declared, under certain conditions, the aid compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c) EC. The applicant is a competitor of the beneficiary of the State aid and its subsidiaries, Axens and Prosernat.

The applicant puts forward four pleas in law in support of its claims.

First, it argues that the Commission manifestly erred in fact and in law in violation of Article 87(3) EC and the 1996 Research et Development Framework by mischaracterising the nature of the research and development undertaken by IFP under Annex I of the 1996 Research et Development Framework and thereby wrongly determining the weighted maximum aid intensity. The applicant bases this plea on the following grounds: the activities of Axens and Prosernat as regards processes do not qualify as research and development and the entire pre-competitive development is carried out by IFP; IFP carried out at least the part of pre-competitive development for process technology and for catalysts that involve the use of pilot plants as well as the part of pre-competitive development that falls within its patent portfolio.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission manifestly erred in fact and in law in violation of Article 87(3) EC and the 1996 Research et Development Framework by failing to have regard to operating aid granted to Axens and Prosernat, the subsidiaries of IFP. The applicant bases the plea on three grounds and claims that: direct benefits for Axens through the continued use of pilot plants as well as indirect benefits for Axens through education grants by IFP and through international research cooperation by IFP were not considered.

Third, the applicant contends that the Commission manifestly erred in law and in fact by concluding that the aid granted to IFP and its subsidiaries, Axens and Prosernat, has an incentive effect.

Fourth, it claims that the Commission manifestly erred in law and in fact by failing to provide adequate reasoning and/or failing to have full regard to the evidence at its disposal.

____________

¹ - OJ 2009 L 53, p.13