This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0858
Case T-858/16: Action brought on 6 December 2016 — Dow Corning and Dow Corning Europe v Commission
Case T-858/16: Action brought on 6 December 2016 — Dow Corning and Dow Corning Europe v Commission
Case T-858/16: Action brought on 6 December 2016 — Dow Corning and Dow Corning Europe v Commission
IO C 46, 13.2.2017, p. 20–21
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
13.2.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 46/20 |
Action brought on 6 December 2016 — Dow Corning and Dow Corning Europe v Commission
(Case T-858/16)
(2017/C 046/23)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Dow Corning Corporation (Midland, Michigan, United States) and Dow Corning Europe (Seneffe, Belgium) (represented by: S. Verschuur, M. Stroungi and L. Mélia, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
|
— |
annul Articles 1-4 of the Commission’s decision of 11 January 2016 on State Aid SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) on the Excess Profit Exemption State aid Scheme implemented by Belgium (‘the contested decision’) (1); |
|
— |
in the alternative, annul Article 2(1) of the contested decision; |
|
— |
order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
|
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 (2) by incorrectly qualifying the excess profit rulings as a scheme, thereby committing various manifest errors of law, fact and assessment and also giving an inadequate statement of reasons. |
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by committing a material error of law and a manifest error of assessment when interpreting and applying the reference system for purposes of assessing whether the excess profit rulings conferred a selective advantage. |
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by incorrectly establishing that the excess profit rulings conferred a selective advantage, thereby committing various manifest errors of fact and assessment, failing to conduct a diligent and impartial examination and giving an inadequate statement of reasons. |
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 16 of Regulation 2015/1589 and various principles of EU law by committing a material error of law and a manifest error of assessment and giving an inadequate statement of reasons when establishing the methodology to quantify the alleged aid. |
(1) Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium (notified under document C(2015) 9837) (OJ L 260, 2016, p. 61)
(2) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ L 248, 2015, p. 9)