1.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/69

—

annul Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania [Arbitral award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013 (notified under document C(2015) 2112)] (OJ 2015 L 232, p. 43);

—

alternatively, annul the contested decision insofar as it (a) concerns the applicant, (b) prevents Romania from complying with the award, (c) orders Romania to recover any incompatible aid, (d) orders that the applicant shall be jointly liable to repay aid received by any of the entities identified in Article 2(2) of the contested decision;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in failing to properly apply Article 351 TFEU and general principles of law to the present case.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision wrongly found that the measure in question conferred an advantage on the applicant, specifically in incorrectly assessing the time at which the alleged advantage was granted, or alternatively in finding that the payment of damages constitutes an advantage.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision wrongly found that the measure in question was imputable to the Romanian State.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision incorrectly assessed the compatibility of the alleged aid measure.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision incorrectly identified the beneficiaries of the alleged aid, and failed to state reasons for its conclusion, specifically in identifying the natural or legal persons comprising the alleged beneficiary undertaking.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in law and exceeded its competence in ordering recovery of the alleged aid.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to observe essential procedural requirements, specifically the right to be heard, Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Regulation 659/1999 (1).