This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0285
Case T-285/14: Action brought on 2 May 2014 — Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and Others v Commission
Case T-285/14: Action brought on 2 May 2014 — Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and Others v Commission
Case T-285/14: Action brought on 2 May 2014 — Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and Others v Commission
OJ C 223, 14.7.2014, p. 36–37
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
14.7.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 223/36 |
Action brought on 2 May 2014 — Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and Others v Commission
(Case T-285/14)
2014/C 223/40
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicants: Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl (Düsseldorf, Germany), Benteler Steel/Tube GmbH (Paderborn), BGH Edelstahl Freital GmbH (Freital), BGH Edelstahl Siegen GmbH (Siegen), BGH Edelstahl Lippendorf GmbH (Lippendorf), Buderus Edelstahl Schmiedetechnik GmbH (Wetzlar), ESF Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi GmbH (Riesa), Friedr. Lohmann GmbH Werk für Spezial- & Edelstähle (Witten), Outokumpu Nirosta GmbH (Krefeld), Peiner Träger GmbH (Peine), ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisburg), ThyssenKrupp Rasselstein GmbH (Andernach), ThyssenKrupp Electrical Steel GmbH (Gelsenkirchen), Pruna Betreiber GmbH (Grünwald), ThyssenKrupp Gerlach GmbH (Homburg), ThyssenKrupp Federn und Stabilisatoren GmbH (Hagen), Salzgitter Mannesmann Rohr Sachsen GmbH (Zeithain), HSP Hoesch Spundwand und Profil GmbH (Dortmund), Salzgitter Mannesmann Grobblech GmbH (Mülheim an der Ruhr), Mülheim Pipecoatings GmbH (Mülheim an der Ruhr), Salzgitter Mannesmann Stainless Tubes Deutschland GmbH (Remscheid), Salzgitter Hydroforming GmbH & Co. KG (Crimmitschau), Salzgitter Mannesmann Line Pipe GmbH (Siegen), Ilsenburger Grobblech GmbH (Ilsenburg) (represented by: A. Reuter, C. Arhold, N. Wimmer, F.-A. Wesche, K. Kindereit, R. Busch, A. Hohler and T. Woltering, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— |
annul the defendant’s decision of 18 December 2013 to open the formal investigation procedure in State aid case SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, OJ 2014 C 37, p. 73; |
— |
join the present procedure and the procedure relating to Germany’s action before the General Court, seeking the annulment of the contested decision (lodging of the application on 21 March 2014); in the alternative: order that access be made available to the file in the proceedings referred to relating to Germany’s action; |
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on nine pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law: No advantage
|
2. |
Second plea in law: No selective advantage
|
3. |
Third plea in law: No use of State resources
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law: No distortion of competition
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law: No effect on trade between the Member States
|
6. |
Sixth plea in law: A cessation or substantial reduction of the special compensation regime infringes the applicants’ fundamental rights
|
7. |
Seventh plea in law: the special compensation regime is covered by the Commission decision of 22 May 2002
|
8. |
Eighth plea in law: Manifest error of assessment and insufficient preliminary examination
|
9. |
Ninth plea in law: Infringement of the right to be heard
|
(1) Commission letter of 22 May 2002, C(2002) 1887 fin./State aid NN 27/2000- Germany