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 62014TN0003

    Case T-3/14: Action brought on 2 January 2014 — Anudal Industrial v Commission

    IO C 52, 22.2.2014, p. 50–50 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    22.2.2014   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 52/50

    Action brought on 2 January 2014 — Anudal Industrial v Commission

    (Case T-3/14)

    2014/C 52/96

    Language of the case: Spanish

    Parties

    Applicant: Anudal Industrial, SL (Badalona, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco and J. Corral García, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the General Court should:

    —

    annul Articles 1 to 6 of the Decision;

    —

    in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the Decision in so far as it orders recovery of the aid; and

    —

    order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from these proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-515/13 Spain v Commission.

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

    1.

    The contested decision is vitiated by breach of essential procedural requirements and infringement of Articles 20, 21 and 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that it was adopted following an investigation procedure in which there were substantial irregularities.

    2.

    Error of law: infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission found that the measures covered by the present proceedings constitute State aid, without establishing that they were selective.

    3.

    Error of law: infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission found that the measures covered by the present proceedings constitute State aid, without establishing that they affect Community trade.

    4.

    Error of law: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and failure to state reasons, inasmuch as the Commission found that there was State aid and categorised the Economic Interest Groupings and their investors as beneficiaries, in circumstances in which the aid neither confers competitive advantages on those parties nor affects trade between Member States in their respective sectors.

    5.

    Error of law in ordering recovery of the alleged aid in breach of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment, as well as of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
    Top