Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018TN0525

Case T-525/18: Action brought on 4 September 2018 — ENGIE Global LNG Holding and Others v Commission

OJ C 399, 5.11.2018, p. 44–45 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

5.11.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/44


Action brought on 4 September 2018 — ENGIE Global LNG Holding and Others v Commission

(Case T-525/18)

(2018/C 399/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ENGIE Global LNG Holding Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Engie Invest International SA (Luxembourg), ENGIE (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: B. Le Bret and M. Struys, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

declare the present action admissible and well founded;

principally, annul the contested decision;

in the alternative, annul Article 2 of that decision in so far as it orders recovery of the aid;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action brought against the Commission decision of 20 June 2018 on State aid SA.44888 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) implemented by Luxembourg in favour of ENGIE, the applicants rely on nine pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in the application of the first criterion of the concept of State aid concerning the existence of State intervention.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement by the Commission of the notion of advantage, in that it mistakes the concept of advantage for that of selectivity, finds that there is an economic advantage on the basis of the combined effect of measures which individually comply with general law, and analyses that effect on the basis of a distortion of the facts and several errors in law and assessment.

3.

Third plea in law, based on errors in law and assessment allegedly made by the Commission when defining the two reference frameworks relied on alternatively (general and narrow) to demonstrate the existence of a discriminatory derogation in favour of, first, the holding companies (LNG Holding and CEF) and, second, the ENGIE group.

4.

Fourth plea in law, based on errors in law and appraisal that the Commission allegedly made in its assessment of the existence of derogations and discriminatory treatment in favour of, first, the holding companies and, second, the ENGIE group.

5.

Fifth plea in law, based on errors in law and appraisal allegedly made by the Commission in its classification of a selective advantage resulting from the non-application of the Luxembourg rule relating to abuse of rights.

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its classification of the measures at issue as individual aid.

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement by the Commission of the distribution of powers between Member States and the European Union, as well as misuse of the power conferred upon it in respect of State aid for the purpose of intervening in measures of a general nature which come within the scope of national policies in the field of direct taxation.

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement by the Commission of the procedural rights of the applicants and its failure to comply with the duty to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU.

9.

Ninth plea in law, relied on in the alternative and alleging infringement of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9) inasmuch as the Commission ordered recovery of the alleged aid at issue in breach of general principles of EU law.


Top