Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62022TN0714

    Case T-714/22: Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Nutmark v Commission

    OJ C 24, 23.1.2023, p. 59–59 (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 24/59


    Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Nutmark v Commission

    (Case T-714/22)

    (2023/C 24/82)

    Language of the case: Portuguese

    Parties

    Applicant: Nutmark Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: P. Vidal Matos and F. Lança Martins, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that Court should

    annul the contested decision in its entirety;

    order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action 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) (JO 2022, L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

    First plea in law, alleging an error of law due to the incorrect identification of the reference system, in breach of Article 4(2) TEU and Articles 107(1) and 263 TFEU.

    Second plea in law, alleging an error of law due to the failure to demonstrate that Regime III of the Zona Franca da Madeira (Madeira Free-Trade Zone) amounts to a derogation from the reference tax system which establishes differences between economic operators that are in a comparable factual and legal situation, in breach of Article 107(1) TFEU.

    Third plea in law, alleging an error of law in the assessment relating to the fulfilment of the requirements for the correct implementation of Regime III of the Zona Franca da Madeira, in that the Portuguese Republic adopted, for that purpose, criteria in accordance with Article 107(1) TFEU.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in an infringement of the principles of legal certainty and security laid down in Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU.

    Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in the infringement of the right to private property laid down in Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.


    Top