5.4 The case of ABN AMRO

This case revolved around the acquisition ban that was imposed on ABN AMRO. On 5 April 2011, the Commission adopted a decision on ABN AMRO (“the ABN AMRO-decision”). This decision included an acquisition ban for a period of three years, with the exception however of acquisitions of specified types and of a specified minimum size. That ban would be extended to five years if the Dutch State continued to own more than 50% of ABN AMRO at the end of three years.

ABN AMRO brought an action for annulment against that decision. In support of the action, ABN AMRO relied on two pleas in law. In its first plea, it challenged the scope of the acquisition ban imposed on it. In its second plea, it contested the duration of the prohibition. In particular, ABN AMRO alleged an infringement of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and a misapplication of the Crisis Communications, an infringement of the principle of proportionality, an infringement of the principle of equal treatment and an infringement of the principle of good administration, together with a failure to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU. In the context of this PhD-study, the plea alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment is most interesting. As will be discussed in section 5.20.1, this plea in law was rejected by the General Court. The other pleas in law were also rejected. Consequently, the action for annulment was dismissed in its entirety by the General Court in its judgment of 8 April 2014.1