Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62011TN0560

    Case T-560/11: Action brought on 28 October 2011 — Kronofrance and Kronoply v Commission

    IO C 13, 14.1.2012, p. 17–18 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    14.1.2012   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 13/17

    Action brought on 28 October 2011 — Kronofrance and Kronoply v Commission

    (Case T-560/11)

    2012/C 13/37

    Language of the case: German

    Parties

    Applicants: Kronofrance SAS (Sully sur Loire, France), Kronoply GmbH (Heiligengrabe, Germany) (represented by: R. Nierer and L. Gordalla, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicants claim that the Court should:

    —

    annul the Commission’s decision of 23 March 2011 (C 28/2005), which declared the State aid that Germany had implemented in favour of Glunz AG and OSB Deutschland GmbH, in the amount of EUR 69 797 988, to be compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3)(a) TFEU;

    —

    order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the applicants’ costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging infringement of the TFEU Treaty or the EC Treaty or of a rule of law which has to be applied when it is implemented

    In the first plea the applicants submit that the Commission did not comply with the rules in the Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects (OJ 1998 C 107, p. 7) (‘the Multisectoral framework’) in that it

    —

    did not determine a maximum allowable aid intensity as required, in the applicants’ opinion, by point 3.1 of the Multisectoral framework;

    —

    established the annual growth rates for chipboards in accordance with point 7.8 of the Multisectoral framework on the basis of incorrect periods and thus arrived at an excessively high competition factor;

    —

    combined different competition factors in respect of the same project and therefore departed from the legal framework of point 3.10 of the Multisectoral framework.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers

    In the second plea the applicants submit that the Commission misused its powers in assessing the aid as it did not adhere to the requirements which it itself had established.
    Top