EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0201
Case T-201/16: Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Soudal v Commission
Case T-201/16: Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Soudal v Commission
Case T-201/16: Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Soudal v Commission
OJ C 232, 27.6.2016, p. 27–29
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
27.6.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 232/27 |
Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Soudal v Commission
(Case T-201/16)
(2016/C 232/36)
Language of the case: Dutch
Parties
Applicant: Soudal NV (Turnhout, Belgium) (represented by: H. Viaene, B. Hoorelbeke, D. Gillet and F. Verhaegen, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
— |
declare the application for annulment admissible; |
— |
annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 January 2016 on the excess-profit-exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium, as notified to the applicant by the Belgian State on 23 February 2016; |
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant invokes four pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 (1), Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 296 TFEU, to the extent that the Commission incorrectly classifies the contested measure as an aid measure.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and breach of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, to the extent that the Commission did not correctly assess the existence of an advantage and did not apply the private-investor principle.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and breach of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, to the extent that the Commission did not correctly assess whether the contested measure was selective in nature.
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, based on the contention that the obligation to recover infringes the principle of legal certainty. |
(1) 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 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).