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 62016TN0890

    Case T-890/16: Action brought on 12 December 2016 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland/Commission

    OJ C 63, 27.2.2017, p. 31–31 (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:
    12/12/2016
    Date lodged:
    12/12/2016
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    English
    Type of procedure:
    Action for annulment

    27.2.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 63/31

    Action brought on 12 December 2016 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland/Commission

    (Case T-890/16)

    (2017/C 063/42)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicants: Scandlines Danmark ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark), Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicants claim that the Court should:

    —

    annul the European Commission’s decision dated 30 September 2016 (the Contested Decision), concerning certain aid measures granted to certain third parties regarding the financing of the planning, construction and operation of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link Project;

    —

    order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicants rely on ten pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the potential overcompensation involved in the railway fees constitutes existing aid authorised by the Construction Decision.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the gratuitous use of State property constitutes existing aid authorised by the Construction Decision.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the State guarantees to the third party concerned constitute existing aid authorised by the Planning Decision.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the capital injections constitute existing aid authorised by the Planning Decision.

    5.

    Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the State loans constitute existing aid authorised by the Planning Decision.

    6.

    Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the State aid exceeding the amount authorised by the Planning Decision constitutes existing aid.

    7.

    Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the tax advantages constitute existing aid authorised by the Planning Decision.

    8.

    Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the Contested Aid Measures for the planning phase have been authorised in the Construction Decision.

    9.

    Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure.

    10.

    Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons.
    Top