Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62016TN0108

Case T-108/16: Action brought on 17 March 2016 — Naviera Armas v Commission

IO C 175, 17.5.2016, p. 19–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
17/03/2016
Date lodged:
17/03/2016
Author:
Cúirt Ghinearálta
Form:
Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
Authentic language:
Spáinnis
Type of procedure:
Caingean le haghaidh neamhniú
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Instruments cited in case law:
Link

17.5.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/19

Action brought on 17 March 2016 — Naviera Armas v Commission

(Case T-108/16)

(2016/C 175/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Naviera Armas, SA (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra and Á. Givaja Sanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 December 2015 on State aid SA.36628 (2015/NN-2) (OJ 2016 C 25, p. 2) finding that no State aid was granted to the shipping company Fred Olsen S.A. in the context of measures adopted by the Kingdom of Spain at Puerto de las Nieves;

—

order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision, the Commission found that the alleged exclusive right held by Fred Olsen to operate out of the port of Puerto de las Nieves (the Canary Islands, Spain), Fred Olsen’s total or partial exemption from payment of the corresponding port dues, and the conditions of use of that port which, according to the applicant, also provide an unfair advantage to that shipping company in that they exclude conventional vessels, do not constitute State aid.

In support of its action, the applicant raises a single plea claiming that it provided a sufficient statement of reasons for the Commission to have reasonable doubt concerning the existence of State aid in favour of Fred Olsen, thus giving grounds for initiation of a formal investigation procedure.

In support of that plea, the applicant contends that:

—

the excessively long duration of the preliminary examination carried out by the Commission between the date Naviera Armas lodged its complaint, 26 April 2013, and the date of the contested decision is, in itself, evidence of the complexity of the case and demonstrates that initiation of a formal investigation procedure was necessary.

—

the contested decision is vitiated by certain manifest errors in the assessment of the facts, such as stating that no undertaking requested permission to operate out of Puerto de las Nieves using high speed ferries before 2013, that Fred Olsen was the only undertaking interested in using the port in the 1990s, and that only high speed ferries can operate out of that port.

—

Fred Olsen has had exclusive use of Puerto de las Nieves since 1991 thus giving it a competitive advantage at the discretion of the Spanish authorities.

—

Fred Olsen has benefitted from total exemption from certain port dues for over 20 years.
Top