29.8.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 314/33 |
Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Luciad v Commission
(Case T-369/16)
(2016/C 314/45)
Language of the case: Dutch
Parties
Applicant: Luciad (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by: D. Arts, P. Smet and I. Panis, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
— |
declare the application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium to be admissible and well founded; |
— |
annul the Commission Decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium; and |
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107(1) TFEU.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU by virtue of inadequate reasoning and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as there is no measure that distorts or threatens to distort competition.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU by virtue of inadequate reasoning and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the contested scheme does not adversely affect trade between Member States. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the contested scheme does not confer any selective advantage.
|
(1) 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).