Ce document est extrait du site web EUR-Lex
Document 62013TN0461
Case T-461/13: Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission
Case T-461/13: Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission
Case T-461/13: Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission
OJ C 304, 19.10.2013, p. 23–24
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
19.10.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 304/23 |
Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission
(Case T-461/13)
2013/C 304/41
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the contested decision; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The action is brought against the decision of the Commission of 19 June 2013, on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/010, ex CP 163/2009) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas (other than Castilla-La Mancha). That decision found that that aid was partly incompatible with the internal market and therefore ordered that it be recovered.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five 11 pleas in law.
|
1. |
First plea: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in the absence, in the present case, of any economic advantage granted to an entity engaged in an economic activity, of selectivity of that measure and of distortion of competition. |
|
2. |
Second plea: infringement of Article 106(2) TFEU, and Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, given that it has not been established that the principle of technological neutrality was breached. |
|
3. |
Third plea: infringement of the procedure in State aid cases, having regard, in the present case, to its excessive duration, to the failure to take into account evidence that was presented, as well as lack of consistency and objectivity during the appraisal. |
|
4. |
The fourth plea, in the alternative: infringement of the principles of legal certainty, equality, proportionality and subsidiarity, and absence of the obligation to recover the resulting aid, in so far as Article 14 of 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) waives that recovery requirement where the general principles of European Union law have been disregarded. |
|
5. |
Fifth plea, likewise in the alternative: breach of the right to information, enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and of the lack of a requirement to recover the resulting aid. |