18.12.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 437/37 |
Action brought on 13 October 2017 — M-Sansz v Commission
(Case T-709/17)
(2017/C 437/45)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Parties
Applicant: M-Sansz Kereskedelmi, Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. (Pécs, Hungary) (represented by: L. Szabó, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
— |
declare that Commission Decision SA.29432 — CP 290/2009 — Hungary — ‘Aid for the employment of disabled workers alleged to be unlawful due to the discriminatory nature of the legislation’, of 20 July 2011, and Commission Decision SA.45498 (FC/2016) — ‘Complaint made by OPS Újpest-lift Kft. concerning the State aid granted between 2006 and 2012 to companies employing disabled workers’, of 25 January 2017, (‘the contested decisions’) do not find that the State aid is compatible on the basis of Article 107(1) TFEU; |
— |
in the alternative, declare that the contested decisions do not constitute legally binding acts as regards the applicant in its action for damages brought against the Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma (Ministry of Human Resources, Hungary) in Case No 23. P. 25.843/2016 before the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary), and that, for that reason, the applicant is not directly and individually concerned, since it bases its claim for damages on the infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, and not on the infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU; |
— |
in the event that the contested decisions should be characterised as legally binding acts as regards the applicant in its action for damages based on the infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, declare the contested decisions invalid, since the State aid granted by the Hungarian authorities infringes Article 107(1) TFEU. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its action, the applicant invokes a legal basis in relation to each of its claims.
1. |
Legal basis for the first claim
|
2. |
Legal basis for the second claim
|
3. |
Legal basis for the third claim
|