EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019TN0762
Case T-762/19: Action brought on 8 November 2019 – Rio Tinto European Holdings and Others v Commission
Case T-762/19: Action brought on 8 November 2019 – Rio Tinto European Holdings and Others v Commission
Case T-762/19: Action brought on 8 November 2019 – Rio Tinto European Holdings and Others v Commission
OJ C 45, 10.2.2020, p. 36–38
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
10.2.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 45/36 |
Action brought on 8 November 2019 – Rio Tinto European Holdings and Others v Commission
(Case T-762/19)
(2020/C 45/36)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Rio Tinto European Holdings Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Rio Tinto International Holdings Ltd (London) and Rio Tinto Simfer UK Ltd (London) (represented by: N. Niejahr and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers, A. Stratakis and P. O’Gara, Solicitors)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— |
annul Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1352 of 2 April 2019 on the State aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing (OJ 2019 L 216, p. 1), in so far as it holds that the alleged aid measure constitutes aid in the sense of Article 107(1) TFEU and orders its recovery with interest, including from the applicants; |
— |
in the alternative, annul Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the contested decision to the extent that it orders the recovery of incompatible aid with interest, including from the applicants; |
— |
order the Commission to bear its own costs and the applicants’ costs in connection with these proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law:
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated Article 107(1) TFEU by holding that the alleged aid measure provides a selective advantage:
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated Article 107(1) TFEU by failing to demonstrate that the alleged aid measure was liable to affect trade between Member States and threatened to distort competition. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging, alternatively, the Commission violated Article 49 TFEU by qualifying the alleged aid measure as incompatible State aid that does not breach the freedom of establishment as guaranteed by Article 49 TFEU. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated the fundamental principle of equal treatment/non-discrimination by:
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that, even if the alleged aid measure falls within the ambit of Article 107(1) TFEU, the Commission has violated Article 16(1) of the Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (2) by ordering the recovery of amounts of alleged incompatible aid from the beneficiaries of the alleged aid measure, because such recovery infringes general principles of EU law, namely the principle of legitimate expectations and legal certainty. |
(1) Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market (OJ 2016 L 193, p. 1).
(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).