Notices for publication in the OJ nº T-330/09 of Court of First Instance of the European Communities, October 23, 2009

• Resolution Date: October 23, 2009
• Issuing Organization: Court of First Instance of the European Communities
• Decision Number: T-330/09

Action brought on 19 August 2009 - RapidEye v Commission

(Case T-330/09)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: RapidEye AG (Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany) (represented by: T. Jestaedt, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annulment of the Commission's decision by letter of 9 June 2009 in Case 'State Aid CP 183/2009 - Germany, RapidEye AG (ex-post monitoring MSR 1998 - N 416/2002)' in so far as the Commission thereby holds that a State aid intensity of 35% of the gross grant equivalent and a State aid amount of EUR 44 199 321.36 are inadmissible, and that State aid which exceeds either an aid intensity of 30.22% or a maximum aid amount of EUR 37 316 000 requires a new notification;

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its Decision C (2002) 3570 final of 2 October 2002, the Commission authorised State aid in favour of RapidEye AG (State Aid No N 416/2002 - Germany (Brandenburg), aid for RapidEye AG) in accordance with the multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects , in which a maximum aid intensity and maximum aid amount are determined ('Commission decision of 2 October 2002').

In the present case, the applicant disputes the Commission letter D (2009) 569 of 9 June 2009 concerning State aid CP 183/2009 - Germany, RapidEye AG (ex-post monitoring MSR 1998 - N 416/2002). In that letter, the German authorities were in particular required to comply with the aid intensity and aid amount authorised by the Commission decision of 2 October 2002 and to confirm that any amounts paid to the beneficiary which exceed those maximum amounts would be recovered.

In support of its application, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

First, the applicant alleges an infringement of Articles 87 and 88 EC and of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 , as, in its opinion, State aid up to an aid intensity of 35% is covered by the Commission decision...