Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62014TN0808

    Case T-808/14: Action brought on 12 December 2014  — Spain v Commission

    OJ C 34, 2.2.2015, p. 45–46 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    12/12/2014
    Date lodged:
    12/12/2014
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    Spanish

    2.2.2015   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 34/45

    Action brought on 12 December 2014 — Spain v Commission

    (Case T-808/14)

    (2015/C 034/54)

    Language of the case: Spanish

    Parties

    Applicant: the Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Abogado del Estado)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the contested decision, and

    —

    order the Commission to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    This action is brought against the Decision of the European Commission of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA 27408 (C 24/2010) NN 37/2010 EX, EX CP 19/2009) granted by the authorities of Castilla La Mancha for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less developed areas of Castilla La Mancha.

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law:

    1.

    By its first plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU as a result of the lack of an economic advantage for undertakings engaged in an economic activity, lack of selectivity of the measure and lack of distortion of competition.

    2.

    By its second plea in law, the applicant alleges infringement of Articles 106(2) and 107(3)(c) TFEU as a result of the lack of evidence to show that the principle of technological neutrality has been infringed.

    3.

    By its third plea in law, the applicant alleges breach of the State aid procedure as a result of the irregularities which occurred during the preparatory investigation.

    4.

    By its fourth plea in law, raised in the alternative, the applicant alleges infringement of the principles of legal certainty, equality, proportionality and subsidiarity in conjunction with Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty.
    Top