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 62015TN0755

Case T-755/15: Action brought on 30 December 2015 — Luxembourg v Commission

OJ C 59, 15.2.2016, p. 48–49 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

15.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/48

Action brought on 30 December 2015 — Luxembourg v Commission

(Case T-755/15)

(2016/C 059/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: D. Holderer, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck, S. Naudin and A. Steichen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

—

primarily, annul the Commission decision of 21 October concerning State aid SA.38375 implemented by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in favour of FIAT;

—

in the alternative, annul the Commission decision of 21 October concerning State aid SA.38375 implemented by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in favour of FIAT in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, in that the Commission has not adduced proof that the contested anticipatory decision was selective.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU and of the Commission’s obligation to state reasons, in that the Commission did not adduce proof of an advantage or of a restriction of competition.

3.

Third plea in law, relied on in the alternative, alleging infringement of Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, in that the Commission required recovery of the aid in disregard of the principle of legal certainty and of the rights of the defence.
Top