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 62014TN0238

Case T-238/14: Action brought on 11 April 2014 — EGBA and RGA v Commission

OJ C 212, 7.7.2014, p. 35–35 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

7.7.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/35

Action brought on 11 April 2014 — EGBA and RGA v Commission

(Case T-238/14)

2014/C 212/45

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) (Brussels, Belgium) and The Remote Gambling Association (RGA) (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Brankin, Solicitor, T. De Meese, E. Wijckmans and M. Mudrony, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—

Order the annulment of the Commission Decision of 19 June 2013 on State aid No SA.30753 (C 34/10) (ex N 140/10) which France is planning to implement for horse racing companies (OJ L 14, 18/01/2014, p. 17); and

—

Order the Commission to bear the costs of the applicants in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision infringes essential procedural requirements contained in or arising from Article 108(2), the principle of good administration and Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision infringes Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and the principle of good administration since:

—

the measure is not necessary and therefore has no proper common interest objective;

—

the measure includes costs with no common interest justification;

—

the measure is not an appropriate instrument for achieving the common interest objective;

—

the measure distorts competition and has an adverse effect on trade; and

—

the Commission failed to take the overall context into account for the assessment of the measure.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging alleging that the Commission, at various points in the contested measure, failed to adequately state its reasons.
Top