This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TN0728
Case T-728/17: Action brought on 24 October 2017 — Marinvest and Porting v Commission
Case T-728/17: Action brought on 24 October 2017 — Marinvest and Porting v Commission
Case T-728/17: Action brought on 24 October 2017 — Marinvest and Porting v Commission
OJ C 22, 22.1.2018, p. 46–47
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
22.1.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 22/46 |
Action brought on 24 October 2017 — Marinvest and Porting v Commission
(Case T-728/17)
(2018/C 022/62)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicants: Marinvest d.o.o. (Izola-Isola, Slovenia) and Porting d.o.o. (Izola-Isola) (represented by: G. Cecovini Amigoni and L. Daniele, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— |
annul European Commission Decision of 27.07.2017, C (2017) 5049 final (State Aid SA.45220 (2016/FC) — Slovenia — Alleged aid in favour of Komunala Izola d.o.o.) notified to Marinvest and Porting on 16 August 2017; |
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
This action is brought against European Commission Decision of 27.07.2017, C (2017) 5049 final (State Aid SA.45220 (2016/FC) — Slovenia — Alleged aid in favour of Komunala Izola d.o.o.) notified to Marinvest and Porting on 16 August 2017.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard resulting from the use, in the contested decision, of entirely new evidence not mentioned by the Commission in its letter of invitation to submit comments, infringement of the fundamental right to good administration provided for in Article 41 of the Charter, infringement of the general principle of the right to be heard, and infringement of Article 24(2) of Regulation 2015/1589
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard resulting from denial of access to the file and denial of the opportunity to be heard before the final decision was adopted, infringement of the fundamental right to good administration provided for in Article 41 of the Charter, infringement of the general principle of the right to be heard, infringement of Article 24(2) of Regulation 2015/1589, and existence in the present case of a failure to state reasons
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the notion of State aid with regard to the requirement of adverse effect on cross-border trade, infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, infringement of the Commission Notice on the notion of State aid, infringement of the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, and existence in the present case of a failure to state reasons
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the notion of State aid with regard to the requirement for competition to have been distorted and cross-border trade to be affected, incorrect assessment of the facts and distortion of the facts, and existence in the present case of a failure to state reasons
|