201806080241931502018/C 221/402572018TC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180424343521

Case T-257/18: Action brought on 24 Avril 2018 — Iberpotash v Commission


C2212018EN3410120180424EN0040341352

Action brought on 24 Avril 2018 — Iberpotash v Commission

(Case T-257/18)

2018/C 221/40Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Iberpotash, SA (Suria, Spain) (represented by: N. Niejahr and B. Hoorelbeke. lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Commission Decision (EU) 2018/118 of 31 August 2017 on State aid SA.35818 (2016/C) (ex 2015/NN) (ex 2012/CP) implemented by Spain for Iberpotash (notified under document C(2017) 5877); ( 1 )

in the alternative:

annul the contested decision to the extent that it finds Measure 1 to contain State aid and orders its recovery with interest from the applicant; and/or

annul the contested decision insofar as it determines the amount of unlawful but compatible aid received by the applicant contained in Measure 4 to amount to EUR 3902461,30, and the illegal aid to be recovered with interest from the applicant to amount to EUR 3958109,70;

order the Commission to bear its own costs and the applicant’s costs in connection with the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by finding that Measure 1 involves a transfer of State resources.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by finding that Measure 1 confers a selective economic advantage on the applicant. In the alternative, it is alleged that the Commission failed to correctly determine the amount of unlawful and incompatible State aid, if any, arising from Measure 1, in violation of Article 16(1) of the Procedural Regulation. ( 2 )

3.

Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the Commission violated Article 16(1) of the Procedural Regulation regarding Measure 1 by ordering recovery because such recovery violates the applicant’s legitimate expectations and/or the principle of legal certainty.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by finding that Measure 4 confers a selective economic advantage on the applicant.

5.

Fifth plea in law alleging, in the alternative, that the Commission violated Article 16(1) of the Procedural Regulation by failing to correctly determine the amount of unlawful and incompatible aid, if any, arising from Measure 4.


( 1 ) OJ 2018 L 28, p. 25.

( 2 ) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).