This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017TN0778
Case T-778/17: Action brought on 28 November 2017 — Autostrada Wielkopolska v Commission
Case T-778/17: Action brought on 28 November 2017 — Autostrada Wielkopolska v Commission
Case T-778/17: Action brought on 28 November 2017 — Autostrada Wielkopolska v Commission
OJ C 32, 29.1.2018, p. 41–43
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
29.1.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 32/41 |
Action brought on 28 November 2017 — Autostrada Wielkopolska v Commission
(Case T-778/17)
(2018/C 032/56)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: O. Geiss and D. Tayar, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the Commission Decision of 25 August 2017 in Case SA.35356 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN, ex 2012/N) on State aid implemented by Poland for the company Autostrada Wielkopolska S.A.; and |
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the applicant’s participation rights, in particular the right to be heard prior to the adoption of the Contested Decision;
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and in fact by applying the wrong test to determine whether the constituent elements of Article 107(1) TFEU were met and applied said (incorrect) test in breach of Article 107(1) TFEU;
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission manifestly erred in law and in fact by failing to apply the private investor test in line with the relevant case law and by failing to provide adequate reasoning, therefore infringing Article 107 (1) TFEU;
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s finding of incompatible aid is based on erroneous findings and is vitiated by internal contradictions;
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission manifestly erred in fact and in law when calculating the amount of State aid by failing to carry out its own assessment and to provide adequate reasoning;
|