Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62011TN0488

Case T-488/11: Action brought on 9 September 2011 — Sarc v Commission

OJ C 331, 12.11.2011, p. 26–26 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

12.11.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/26

Action brought on 9 September 2011 — Sarc v Commission

(Case T-488/11)

2011/C 331/50

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Scheepsbouwkundig Advies- en Rekencentrum (Sarc) BV (Bussum, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Speyart, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

Annul Commission decision C(2011) 642 final of 10 May 2011 given in the State aid proceedings NN 68/2010 declaring that the aid granted does not constitute State aid; and

—

Order the European Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging

—

that the Commission failed, where it should have done so, to open the formal investigation procedure within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU;

2.

Second plea in law, alleging

—

that the Commission, in a further submission, failed to associate SARC in its preliminary assessment in a sufficient manner;

3.

Third plea in law, alleging

—

that the Commission misapplied Article 107 (1) TFEU;

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging

—

that the Commission failed, where it should have done so, to order the Dutch authorities to submit an evaluation, or to commission an independent evaluation;

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging

—

that the Commission failed to reason its decision to the required standard.
Top