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 62015TN0252

Case T-252/15: Action brought on 21 May 2015 — Ferrovial and others v Commission

OJ C 245, 27.7.2015, p. 35–36 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

27.7.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/35

Action brought on 21 May 2015 — Ferrovial and others v Commission

(Case T-252/15)

(2015/C 245/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Ferrovial, SA (Madrid, Spain), Ferrovial Servicios, SA (Madrid, Spain), Amey UK plc (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez and M. Linares Gil, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought

—

annul European Commission Decision C (2014) 7280 of 15 October 2014, on State aid SA 35550 (13/C) (ex 13/NN) (ex 12/CP) implemented by Spain;

—

in the alternative annul Article 4(2) of that Decision, and

—

order the defendant institution to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in this case is the same as that in Case T-826/14, Spain v Commission, and Case T-12/15, Banco de Santander and Santusa v Commission.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU on the ground of failure to state reasons.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, since, according to the applicants the measure under assessment does not meet the criteria to constitute state aid.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU, Article 1(c) 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, and Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004, implementing Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, since the measure under assessment does not constitute new, unlawful and incompatible aid.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging the invalidity of Article 4(2) of the Third Decision on the ground of infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999, by failing to limit the recovery order in the same terms as the first two decisions did (acquisitions earlier than 21 December 2007).

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging the invalidity of Article 4 of the Third Decision (recovery order) on the ground of infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999, by not excluding indirect operations before 10 March 2005 from the recovery order.
Top