Ce document est extrait du site web EUR-Lex
Document 62016TN0160
Case T-160/16: Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Groningen Seaports and Others v Commission
Case T-160/16: Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Groningen Seaports and Others v Commission
Case T-160/16: Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Groningen Seaports and Others v Commission
OJ C 200, 6.6.2016, p. 29–30
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date du document:
- 15/04/2016
- Date de dépôt:
- 15/04/2016
- Auteur:
- General Court
- Forme:
- Judicial information
- Langue faisant foi:
- Dutch
- Type de procédure:
- Action for annulment
- Lien
- Sélectionner l'ensemble des documents citant ce document
- Affaire visant:
-
- demande d’annulation 32016D0634
- Lien
|
6.6.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 200/29 |
Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Groningen Seaports and Others v Commission
(Case T-160/16)
(2016/C 200/42)
Language of the case: Dutch
Parties
Applicants: Groningen Seaports NV (Delfzijl, Netherlands), Havenbedrijf Amsterdam NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Havenbedrijf Rotterdam NV (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Havenschap Moerdijk (Moerdijk, Netherlands), NV Port of Den Helder (Den Helder, Netherlands), Zeeland Seaports NV (Terneuzen, Netherlands) (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk and I. Kieft, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the contested decision; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants challenge the Commission Decision of 21 January 2016 on aid measure SA.25338 (2014/C) (ex E 3/2008 and ex CP 115/2004) implemented by the Netherlands — Corporate tax exemption for public undertakings.
In support of their action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law.
Single plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the objectives of the State-aid rules, infringement of the general principles of EU law, in particular the principle of equality, the requirement that decisions should be prepared with due care and the prohibition of arbitrary conduct, and breach of the obligation to state reasons.
|
— |
The public seaports in the Netherlands compete, not with Dutch private undertakings, but with French, Belgian and German seaports in the Hamburg-Le Havre range. |
|
— |
Those European competitors receive, to the detriment of the Dutch public seaports, a variety of forms of State aid. The Commission was aware of this when it adopted the contested decision. In the same way as the Dutch public seaports, all competing seaports within the Hamburg-Le Havre range enjoy an exemption from corporate tax. In addition, the German seaports receive very substantial operating aid in the form of loss compensation. The Commission was also aware of this when it adopted the contested decision. |
|
— |
The contested decision unilaterally abolishes the tax exemption in force for the Dutch public seaports, whereas the corresponding exemptions for the Belgian and French seaports are being maintained for the time being and there has as yet not even been a first formal procedural step taken towards abolishing aid to the German seaports. |
|
— |
Since the Commission, by means of the contested decision, addresses only the tax exemption for the Dutch public seaports, the already uneven playing field for the European port sector is worsened significantly and the Commission places the Dutch public seaports in a markedly worse position vis-à-vis their direct competitors, which are also exempt from corporate tax and, in addition, also receive other forms of State aid. The Commission fails to provide reasons why it is intervening only with regard to the tax exemption for the Dutch public seaports. |
