EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/46

(Case T-525/21)

(2021/C 431/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: E. Breuninger GmbH & Co. (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: M. Vetter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul, pursuant to Article 264(1) TFEU, the defendant’s decision of 28 May 2021 (State aid No SA.62784);

—order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment

The defendant made a manifest error of assessment in determining, by the contested decision, that the German State aid ‘Allgemeine Bundesregelung Schadensausgleich, COVID-19’ (General Federal Scheme for Compensation, Covid-19) is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU. The applicant claims that restricting the eligibility of undertakings with several business activities to those which achieve at least 80 % of their turnover from activities directly affected by the lockdown is arbitrary and that the approval of the aid scheme is disproportionate. According to the applicant, the 80 % threshold removes, without any objective reason, the causal link between the closure orders and the damage resulting therefrom to the detriment of undertakings with several business areas, since such undertakings might remain entirely without compensation despite being directly and significantly affected by the State measures and the considerable losses associated therewith. This leads to a distortion of competition, both in relation to competitors in business areas that were affected by Covid-19 and in relation to those in business areas that were not affected by Covid-19.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU

The applicant claims that the defendant’s decision is vitiated by a failure to conduct a proper examination and a failure to state reasons. The defendant failed to provide the applicant with an opportunity to raise concerns in respect of the compatibility of the aid scheme with the internal market during the preliminary investigation procedure. Furthermore, the defendant failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision to approve the aid scheme.