Action brought on 6 June 2006 — NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket v Commission

(Case T-152/06)

(2006/C 178/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: M. Merola and L. Armati, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision of the Commission not to pursue its investigation of the applicant's complaint relating to three kinds of subsidies to Stockholm Visitors Board AB (‘SVB’), namely: the yearly appropriations from the City of Stockholm's budget in favour of SVB, the reimbursement on a regular basis of SVB's pre-tax losses by its parent company and the preferential access to public assets for the provision of services included in the Stockholm Card. The Commission found that the measures did not constitute unlawful aid.

The applicant submits that, by adopting the contested decision, the Commission has infringed several provisions in the Treaty and Regulation No 659/1999 (1).

The applicant invokes, first, that, by not opening the formal investigation procedure, the Commission infringed Article 88(3) EC as well as Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999. According to the applicant, the Commission was aware of the existence of aid and did not have sufficient elements to establish that all measures at stake qualified as existing aid.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission misapplied Articles 87 and 86(2) EC insofar as it stated that the compensation for carrying out the tourist information activities fell within the rules on services of general economic interest.

Third, the applicant submits that the Commission misapplied Articles 87 and 88 EC, as well as Article 1(b) of Regulation No 659/1999, in stating that, if the compensation for tourist information activities was to be considered as aid, it constituted existing aid and not unlawful aid, and in any case was compatible with the common market.

Fourth, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in the application of Article 87(1) and 88(3) EC in establishing that SVB's commercial activities were carried out under market conditions and were, therefore, not financed from state aid. The applicant submits in particular that the Commission failed to take a position in relation to the reimbursement of SVB's losses by its parent company, wholly owned by the City Council.

Finally, the applicant invokes an infringement of the duty to state reasons, as well as an infringement of the general principle of sound administration in that the duration of the preliminary investigation would have been excessive.

(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 L 83, p. 1).