Notices for publication in the OJ nº T-150/20 of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, May 08, 2020

• Resolution Date: May 08, 2020
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-150/20

Action brought on 24 March 2020 - Tartu Agro v Commission

(Case T-150/20)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: AS Tartu Agro (represented by: T. Järviste, T. Kaurov, M. Peetsalu and M. A. R. Valberg, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare the application admissible;

annul the decision of the Commission of 24 January 2020 on state aid SA.39182 (2017/C), which concerns the grant of alleged illegal aid to Tartu Agro;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the application is admissible.

The application is admissible since, according to the contested decision, the applicant is an alleged recipient of state aid. Therefore, that decision concerns it directly and individually.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission fundamentally infringed substantive and procedural rules when it assessed whether the transaction was in line with market conditions on the basis of the tender procedure, failed to meet the burden of proof and erred in its interpretation of the facts.

The Commission ought to have taken into consideration the temporal context of the time of conclusion of the lease contract, the economic considerations at the time and the standards of interpretation applicable at that time.

The Commission erred in its conclusion that the tender procedure failed to meet the requirements which guarantee the respect of market conditions, since the terms of the tender procedure on the whole had ensured the maximisation of the State’s profit.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission fundamentally infringed substantive and procedural rules when it ascertained whether the rate agreed in the lease contract was in line with market conditions, infringed the rules governing the burden of proof in its assessment of the existence of state aid and erred in its interpretation of the facts.

The Commission established the existence of state aid based on irrelevant and incomplete data. It ought to have established that the investments in land improvement, the costs for land maintenance and the improvement in the quality of the soil were included in the lease in full.

The Commission erred when it failed to take into account that the alleged economic advantage resulting from the lease contract was in any event eliminated in 2002...