EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0867
Case T-867/16: Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Nomacorc v Commission
Case T-867/16: Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Nomacorc v Commission
Case T-867/16: Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Nomacorc v Commission
IO C 46, 13.2.2017, p. 21–22
(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 46/21 |
Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Nomacorc v Commission
(Case T-867/16)
(2017/C 046/24)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Nomacorc (Thimister-Clermont, Belgium) (represented by: S. Verschuur, M. Stroungi and L. Mélia, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims 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 three 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. |
(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)