- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-203/10: Action brought on 30 April 2010 — Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0203
62010TN0203
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 179/51
(Case T-203/10)
(2010/C 179/87)
Language of the case: Dutch
Parties
Applicants: Stichting Woonpunt (Beek, Netherlands), Stichting Com.wonen (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Woningstichting Haag Wonen (The Hague, Netherlands), Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: E. Henny, T. Ottervanger and P. Glazener, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
—Annul the Commission’s decision concerning existing aid, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU;
—annul the Commission’s decision concerning new aid, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU;
—order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants seek annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 (Netherlands) — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations.
The applicants put forward eight pleas in law in support of the first head of claim. Those pleas are the same as the pleas which the applicants put forward in Case T-202/10 Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission.
The applicants put forward three further pleas in support of their second head of claim.
First, according to the applicants, the Commission infringed Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU and Regulation No 659/1999 (1) by deeming project aid for declining urban areas to be part of an existing aid scheme, and by imposing mandatory requirements without following the procedure laid down under Regulation No 659/1999.
Second, the applicants submit that the Commission erroneously took the view that the fourth criterion referred to in Altmark (2) had not been satisfied inasmuch as housing corporations are not chosen by means of a public procurement procedure. According to the applicants, the Commission should have confined itself to checking that the measure did not lead to inefficiency.
Third, the applicants claim that the Commission should have considered whether there was any overcompensation for the service of general economic interest.
Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg [2003] ECR I 7747.