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 62015TN0353

Case T-353/15: Action brought on 26 June 2015 — NeXovation v Commission

IO C 311, 21.9.2015, p. 50–51 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

21.9.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/50

Action brought on 26 June 2015 — NeXovation v Commission

(Case T-353/15)

(2015/C 311/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NeXovation, Inc. (Hendersonville, USA) (represented by: A. von Bergwelt, F. Henkel and M. Nordmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

partially annul the decision C(2014) 3634 final of the European Commission of 1 October 2014 (in the form of the corrigendum decision of 13 April 2015) on the State aid SA.31550 implemented by Germany for Nürburgring, in so far as:

—

it comes to the decision that the sale of assets of Nürburgring GmbH, Motorsport Resort Nürburgring GmbH and Congress- und Motorsport Hotel Nürburgring GmbH does not constitute State aid as stated in the first bullet point of recital 285 of the contested decision;

—

it comes to the decision that the sale of assets of Nürburgring GmbH, Motorsport Resort Nürburgring GmbH and Congress- und Motorsport Hotel Nürburgring GmbH does not lead to economic continuity between Nürburgring GmbH, Motorsport Resort Nürburgring GmbH and Congress- und Motorsport Hotel Nürburgring GmbH and Capricorn NÜRBURGRING Besitzgesellschaft GmbH, the new owner of the assets, or its subsidiaries as stated in the first sentence of the second bullet of recital 285 of the contested decision;

—

it thus comes to the decision that any potential recovery of incompatible State aid will not concern Capricorn NÜRBURGRING Besitzgesellschaft GmbH, the buyer of the assets sold following the tender process, or its subsidiaries as stated in Article 3(2) of the operative part of the contested decision, following the second sentence of the second bullet point of recital 285 of the contested decision;

—

order the Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission decision of 1 October 2014 (with a corrigendum of 13 April 2015) as it decides that the sale of the assets of the Nürburgring complex does not constitute State aid, that the sale of the assets does not lead to a financial/economic continuity between the sellers and the acquirer of the assets and that any potential recovery of incompatible State aid will not concern the buyer of the assets.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

1.

First plea in law, alleging an erroneous application of Article 107(1) TFUE by the Commission as the Commission misunderstood the meaning of an open, transparent and non-discriminatory tender procedure with the sale to the highest bidder and further failed to investigate the State involvement in the sale process appropriately;

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an erroneous application of Article 107(1) TFUE by the Commission when it comes to the conclusion that the temporary lease contract of the ring’s asset does not lead to State aid and that the sellers did not illegitimately influence the further sale of the assets to a Russian investor;

3.

Third plea in law, alleging an erroneous application of the principle of financial/economic continuity by the Commission;

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to initiate a formal investigation procedure by the Commission;

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s rights under Article 20(2) of Regulation No 659/1999 by the Commission;

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principles of an impartial and diligent investigation by the Commission;

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging an erroneous application of Article 296(2) TFUE by the Commission.
Top