Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Scandlines Danmark et Scandlines Deutschland v Commission

(Case T-7/19)

(2019/C 72/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Scandlines Danmark ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark) and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—	annul the contested decision C(2018) 6268 final of 28 September 2018 on State aid SA.51981 (2018/FC);

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the State guarantees granted to A/S Femern Landanlæg have been authorised by the Construction Decision and that they do not constitute state aid.

2.	Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the aid in the form of a DKK 10 million capital injection (in excess of the DKK 500 million authorised by the Planning Decision) is compatible with the internal market.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the State loans to Femern A/S and A/S Femern Landanlæg have been authorised in the Construction Decision and that the ones granted to A/S Femern Landanlæg do not constitute aid, while those granted to Femern A/S are compatible with the internal market.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the State loans granted in excess of the DKK 1 445 million budget, have been authorised in the Planning Decision and that they constitute State aid that is compatible with the internal market.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by finding that the tax advantages do not constitute State aid.

6.	Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU.

7.	Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons, as enshrined in Article 296 TFEU.