This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019TN0648
Case T-648/19: Action brought on 26 September 2019– Nike European Operations Netherlands and Converse Netherlands v Commission
Case T-648/19: Action brought on 26 September 2019– Nike European Operations Netherlands and Converse Netherlands v Commission
Case T-648/19: Action brought on 26 September 2019– Nike European Operations Netherlands and Converse Netherlands v Commission
OJ C 413, 9.12.2019, p. 57–58
(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:
- 26/09/2019
- Date lodged:
- 26/09/2019
- Author:
- General Court
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- English
- Type of procedure:
- Action for annulment
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
9.12.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 413/57 |
Action brought on 26 September 2019– Nike European Operations Netherlands and Converse Netherlands v Commission
(Case T-648/19)
(2019/C 413/69)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Nike European Operations Netherlands BV (Hilversum, Netherlands) and Converse Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Martens and D. Colgan, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
|
— |
annul, in its entirety, the contested opening Decision, i.e. the Commission Decision of 10 January 2019 to initiate the formal investigation procedure in case State aid SA.51284 (2018/NN) – Netherlands – Possible State aid in favour of Nike (1); and |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay all costs of the present proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
|
1. |
First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFEU, Article 108(2) TFEU, Articles 1(d), 1(e) and 6(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 (2) laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU, Articles 41(1) and 41(2) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, the principle of good administration and the principle of equal treatment, by erring in law in the preliminary assessment of the aid character of the contested measures. |
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 107(1), 108(2), 296(2) TFEU, Articles 41(1) and 41(2)(c) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU, by not providing sufficient reasons for finding that the contested measures fulfil all elements of State aid, especially why they should be regarded as selective. |
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 296(2) TFEU, Articles 41(1) and 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU, by prematurely opening a formal investigation and providing insufficient reasoning for the existence of State aid where there were no difficulties to continue the preliminary investigation. |
(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)
