Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62019TN0220

Case T-220/19: Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Mitsubishi Polyester Film v Commission

OJ C 206, 17.6.2019, p. 70–71 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

17.6.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/70

Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Mitsubishi Polyester Film v Commission

(Case T-220/19)

(2019/C 206/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mitsubishi Polyester Film GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: N. Voß and D. Fouquet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;

—

in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013; and

—

order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The application is based on the following grounds.

1.

Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU

In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.

In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.

It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

2.

Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations

In the second plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.
Top