Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62016TB0891

    Case T-891/16: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission (Action for failure to act — State aid — Public financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed rail-road link — Individual aid — Adoption of a position by the Commission — Inadmissibility)

    OJ C 65, 18.2.2019, p. 35–36 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    18.2.2019   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 65/35


    Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission

    (Case T-891/16) (1)

    ((Action for failure to act - State aid - Public financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed rail-road link - Individual aid - Adoption of a position by the Commission - Inadmissibility))

    (2019/C 65/44)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicants: Scandlines Danmark ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark) and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and by S. Noë, acting as Agents)

    Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by: C. Thorning, and subsequently by J. Nymann-Lindegren, acting as Agents, and by R. Holdgaard, lawyer)

    Re:

    Application pursuant to Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission acted unlawfully by failing to define its position on aid measures concerning the financing, planning, construction and operation of the Fehmarn Belt fixed rail-road link.

    Operative part of the order

    1.

    The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

    2.

    Scandlines Danmark ApS and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

    3.

    The Kingdom of Denmark is to bear its own costs.


    (1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.


    Top