Action brought on 25 February 2009 — Pollmeier Massivholz v Commission

(Case T-89/09)

2009/C 129/25

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG (Creuzburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Heithecker and F. von Alemann, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests, first, the Commission’s Decision of 21 October 2008 in the procedure State aid N 512/2007 — Germany, Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH by which the Commission raised no objections to a number of support measures for the construction of a new sawmill in favour of Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH, one of the applicant’s direct competitors, and, second, the Commission’s Decision of 15 December 2008 by which the Commission terminated the complaint procedure CP 195/2007 pending before it in respect of those measures.

The applicant relies on seven pleas in law in support of its action.

First, the contested decisions infringed Article 88(2) and (3) EC and Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) in that the defendant erroneously used the legal position at the time the support measures were granted as a basis for its assessment of the notified support measures and thus came to a conclusion which is incompatible with objective law.

Secondly, the applicant submits, in the alternative, in the event that the Court should reject the first plea, that the defendant infringed Article 88(3) EC and Regulation No 659/1999 in that it carried out the procedure for notified aid under Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999 although the relevant aid had already been granted.

Thirdly, the defendant infringed Article 88(2) and (3) EC in that it did not initiate the formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties of assessment.

Fourthly, the defendant infringed its obligation to conduct a diligent and impartial examination because it manifestly failed to deal at all with a number of the applicant’s main arguments.

Fifthly, the applicant submits that there are deficiencies in the statement of reasons for the contested decisions.

Sixthly, the defendant infringed the applicant’s right to be involved in the procedure to the extent appropriate in that it did not inform the applicant as to the type of procedure it had chosen.

Seventhly, the defendant infringed Article 87(1) EC and Article 88(3) EC in that its calculation of the aid value of the guarantees was incorrect.

(1)  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).