- 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-332/12: Action brought on 23 July 2012 — ING Groep v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0332
62012TN0332
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
22.9.2012
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 287/35
(Case T-332/12)
2012/C 287/65
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: ING Groep NV (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer, J. Blockx and N. Lorjé, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 May 2012 C(2012)3150 final, State aid SA.28855 (N 373/2009) (ex C 10/2009 and ex N 528/2008)-The Netherlands ING — restructuring aid; and
—Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principle of sound administration and the right to be heard by not consulting the Dutch State and ING with respect to facts and its views and assumptions that were pertinent for its conclusion that the amendment to the terms of the core-tier-1 capital injection constituted aid under Article 107(1) TFEU.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law and committed a manifest error of assessment in applying the market economy investor principle (‘MEIP’) test and failed to provide adequate reasoning when qualifying the amendment to the core-tier-1 capital injection as State aid and an aggravating factor in its assessment of the compensatory measures.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and the principles of sound administration, proportionality, legal certainty, equal treatment and the duty to state reasons by failing to take into account the amount of aid when assessing the compensatory measures, and by wrongly calculating the relative amount of the aid and the circumstances under which the aid was granted when assessing the compensatory measures.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, the principle of sound administration, proportionality and the duty to state reasons when making the price leadership bans legally binding on ING.