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 62018TN0757

    Case T-757/18: Action brought on 31 December 2018 — Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou v Commission

    IO C 72, 25.2.2019, p. 38–39 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    25.2.2019   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 72/38

    Action brought on 31 December 2018 — Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou v Commission

    (Case T-757/18)

    (2019/C 72/49)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE (Loutraki, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the Commission’s contested decision of 9 August 2018 on the measures to certain Greek casinos SA.28973 — C 16/2010 (ex NN 22/2010, ex CP 318/2009)

    —

    order the Commission to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on two alternative pleas in law to support that the contested decision infringed its procedural rights and therefore should be annulled.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the part of the contested decision in which the Commission examined whether the alleged state aid measure confers an ‘attractiveness advantage’ should be characterised as a decision not to raise objections adopted following the preliminary examination procedure. Therefore, the applicant claims that the Commission should have initiated the formal investigation procedure because there were serious doubts as to the existence of an attractiveness advantage financed through state resources.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission was in any case obliged to reopen the formal investigation procedure by virtue of judgment T-425/11. In fact, the applicant claims that the Commission was, in principle, obliged to give the parties concerned notice to submit their comments before the adoption of the contested decision.
    Top