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 62013TN0140

    Case T-140/13: Action brought on 8 March 2013 — Scheepsbouw Nederland v Commission

    OJ C 147, 25.5.2013, p. 22–22 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    25.5.2013   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 147/22

    Action brought on 8 March 2013 — Scheepsbouw Nederland v Commission

    (Case T-140/13)

    2013/C 147/39

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Scheepsbouw Nederland (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Struckmann, lawyer, and G. Forwood, Barrister)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    Annul the decision of the European Commission of 20 November 2012 in case SA.34736 (Early depreciation of certain assets acquired through a financial leasing), published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 13 December 2012 (OJ 2012 C 384, p. 2); and

    —

    Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to comply with Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 4(2) and 4(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1).

    In this respect, the applicant argues that, in view of the circumstances of the case, as well as the insufficient and incomplete nature of the substantive examination carried out by the Commission during the preliminary examination procedure, there is sufficient evidence of the existence of serious difficulties as to the assessment of the proposed measure. The Commission was therefore not properly able to conclude, following its preliminary examination, that the measure in question was not State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The Commission had no choice but to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU.

    (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1)

    Top