EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015TN0747R(01)
Corrigendum to the Action brought on 22 December 2015 — EDF v Commission (Case T 747/15) (OJ C 78, 29.2.2016)
Corrigendum to the Action brought on 22 December 2015 — EDF v Commission (Case T 747/15) (OJ C 78, 29.2.2016)
Corrigendum to the Action brought on 22 December 2015 — EDF v Commission (Case T 747/15) (OJ C 78, 29.2.2016)
IO C 136, 18.4.2016, p. 51–52
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
18.4.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 136/51 |
Corrigendum to the Action brought on 22 December 2015 — EDF v Commission
(Case T 747/15)
( Official Journal of the European Union C 78 of 29.2.2016. )
(2016/C 136/74)
The notice in the OJ in Case T-747/15 EDF v Commission should read as follows:
‘Action brought on 22 December 2015 — EDF v Commission
(Case T-747/15)
(2016/C 078/35)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Électricité de France (EDF) (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Debroux, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
principally, annul Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Commission Decision of 22 July 2015 on State aid SA.13869 (C 68/2002) (ex NN 80/2002) — reclassification as capital of the tax-exempt accounting provisions for the renewal of the high-voltage transmission network (RAG) implemented by France in favour of EDF (“the contested decision”) for infringement of essential procedural requirements, errors of law and errors of fact; |
— |
in the alternative, annul Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the contested decision, in that the amount that EDF was required to reimburse was very significantly overestimated, and |
— |
in any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies, principally, on three pleas in law.
1. |
First plea, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU. |
2. |
Second plea, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU. That plea is composed of two branches:
|
3. |
Third plea, alleging a failure to state reasons for the contested decision. |
In support of the action, the applicant also raises two pleas in law in the alternative.
1. |
First plea raised in the alternative, alleging that recovery of the majority of the aid is time barred. That plea in divided into two branches:
|
2. |
Second plea raised in the alternative, alleging errors of calculation committed by the Commission in determining the alleged aid. That plea in divided into three branches:
|