EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022TN0702
Case T-702/22: Action brought on 12 November 2022 — TA v Commission
Case T-702/22: Action brought on 12 November 2022 — TA v Commission
Case T-702/22: Action brought on 12 November 2022 — TA v Commission
OJ C 24, 23.1.2023, p. 56–57
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
23.1.2023 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 24/56 |
Action brought on 12 November 2022 — TA v Commission
(Case T-702/22)
(2023/C 24/78)
Language of the case: Portuguese
Parties
Applicant: TA (represented by: A. Ferreira Correia and R. da Palma Borges, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
|
— |
annul the contested decision in respect of Articles 1 and 4, on the grounds of failure to state reasons, or in so far as those articles apply to beneficiaries on account of the fact that they have employees who are non-resident in the outermost region, or that those beneficiaries obtain earnings from transactions outside the outermost region; |
|
— |
order the defendant institution to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action brought against Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons in the contested decision.
Second plea in law, alleging error of assessment of fact and of law in the contested decision, in that benefits conferred on undertakings that were established regionally, but had relationships with the exterior, were found not to be compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3) TFEU.
Third plea in law, alleging error of assessment of fact and of law in the contested decision, in benefits conferred on undertakings that were established regionally, but maintained employment relationships with employees, who were not in the outermost region on a permanent basis, were found not to be compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3) TFEU.
Fourth plea in law, alleging error of assessment of fact and of law in the contested decision, in that benefits conferred on undertakings that do not exceed the quantitative limits laid down in the Regional State Aid Guidelines 2007 and in the General Block Exemption Regulation 2014, were found not to be compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3) TFEU.
Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of general principles of EU law: legal certainty, legitimate expectations and legality.