Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62009TN0116

Case T-116/09: Action brought on 24 March 2009 — Whirlpool Europe v Commission

OJ C 113, 16.5.2009, p. 42–42 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

16.5.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/42

Action brought on 24 March 2009 — Whirlpool Europe v Commission

(Case T-116/09)

2009/C 113/85

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Whirlpool Europe BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: F.Tuytschaever, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety on account of the fact that one or more of the (cumulative) conditions of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty are not met or that, in any event, the Commission has failed to ascertain to the requisite legal standard that each of such conditions is met;

—

in subsidiary order, annul the decision in its entirety on account of the failure to comply with the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5995 final of 21 October 2008 declaring compatible with the common market the restructuring aid to be paid out by the French authorities to FagorBrandt company, subject to a number of conditions [C 44/2007 (ex N 460/2007)]. The applicant is a competitor to the beneficiary of the aid and has participated in the investigation procedure leading to the adoption of the contested decision.

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-115/09 Electrolux v Commission.

Top