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 62019TN0603

Case T-603/19: Action brought on 9 September 2019 — Helsingin Bussiliikenne v Commission

IO C 383, 11.11.2019, p. 64–65 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

11.11.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/64

Action brought on 9 September 2019 — Helsingin Bussiliikenne v Commission

(Case T-603/19)

(2019/C 383/73)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Helsingin Bussiliikenne Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: O. Hyvönen and N. Rosenlund, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul entirely or partially the Commission decision of 28 June 2019 relating to alleged State aid SA.33846 (2015/C) (ex 2011/CP)

—

order the Commission to pay the entirety of the costs incurred by the applicant, together with statutory interest.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Regulation 2015/1589, and that it committed a material procedural error during the examination procedure and breached the applicant’s rights.

—

The applicant should have been granted the possibility of being heard before the adoption of the contested decision and should have been invited to submit observations during the formal examination procedure, because the contested decision designates it as the beneficiary of the aid and it concerns it directly.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment on the part of the Commission.

—

The Commission did not carry out sufficient enquiries relating to the case, with the result that it made its decision on the basis of incomplete and erroneous information.

—

The Commission’s errors of assessment concern, at least, the question whether the transfer of activity complied with market conditions, its objective and its economic rationale.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the reasons given for the contested decision did not satisfy the requirements of Article 296 TFEU and the case-law relating thereto.

—

That complaint concerns in particular to the reasons relating to the question whether the price at which the activity of HelB was transferred complied with market conditions.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to the general principles of Union law, in particular the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of proportionality.

—

The applicant could legitimately believe, firstly, that the examination carried out by the Commission concerned only the measures and persons identified in the decision to open the formal investigation procedure, and, secondly, that if the examination was extended to the sale of the activity or to its person, the Commission would consequently extend the decision relating to the formal examination procedure and would hear it.

—

The repayment obligation must, as regards the initial beneficiary, in any event be considered to be contrary to the principle of proportionality in so far as it exceeds the price which was actually paid for the repurchase of the activity and, as regards the applicant, in so far as it exceeds the difference between the sale price, which is allegedly underestimated, and the fair price.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on a manifestly erroneous application of Article 107(1) TFEU.

—

The measures identified in the Commission’s decision did not involve unlawful State aid.

—

None of the measures classified as unlawful State aid by the Commission was applicable to the applicant.
Top