Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62017TN0738

    Case T-738/17: Action brought on 3 November 2017 — STIF-IDF v Commission

    OJ C 22, 22.1.2018, p. 49–50 (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 22/49

    Action brought on 3 November 2017 — STIF-IDF v Commission

    (Case T-738/17)

    (2018/C 022/65)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: Syndicat Transport Île-de-France (STIF-IDF) (Paris, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret and C. Rydzynski, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    partially annul the contested decision to the extent that, in Article 3, it classifies ‘the C2 contributions awarded by STIF under CT2’ as an ‘unlawfully implemented aid scheme’ but compatible with the internal market;

    —

    order the Commission to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU vitiating the contested decision in the present case, namely Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1470 of 2 February 2017 on State aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île-de-France Region (OJ 2017 L 209, p. 24). Such an infringement was committed by the Commission in so far as it classified the C2 contribution of CT2 as State aid, considering that the measure conferred an economic advantage on its beneficiaries.

    The applicant considers moreover that the Commission, in its analysis, commits several errors of law and assessment when it concluded that the fourth criterion of the Altmark case-law was not fulfilled in the present case.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the contested decision, relating to the failure to comply with the fourth criterion of the Altmark case-law and of the existence of an economic advantage.
    Top