Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62017TN0292

    Case T-292/17: Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Région Île-de-France v Commission

    IO C 231, 17.7.2017, p. 41–42 (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:
    16/05/2017
    Date lodged:
    16/05/2017
    Author:
    Cúirt Ghinearálta
    Form:
    Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
    Authentic language:
    Fraincis
    Type of procedure:
    Caingean le haghaidh neamhniú

    17.7.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 231/41

    Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Région Île-de-France v Commission

    (Case T-292/17)

    (2017/C 231/51)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: Région Île-de-France (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the decision of the European Commission of 2 February 2017 (SA.26763 — (2014/C) –), concerning the aid scheme implemented by France in favour of bus undertakings in the Île-de-France region, in so far as it classified that scheme as State aid;

    —

    order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the Commission refused to classify the support scheme for the region as existing aid.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons for the contested decision. This plea is divided into two parts:

    —

    First part, alleging a failure to state reasons relating to the criterion of selectivity.

    —

    Second part, alleging a failure to state reasons relating to the criterion of undue economic advantage.
    Top