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 62021TN0102

    Case T-102/21: Action brought on 18 February 2021 — Bastion Holding and Others v Commission

    IO C 182, 10.5.2021, p. 58–58 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    10.5.2021   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 182/58

    Action brought on 18 February 2021 — Bastion Holding and Others v Commission

    (Case T-102/21)

    (2021/C 182/78)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicants: Bastion Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and 35 other applicants (represented by: B. Braeken and X.Y.G. Versteeg, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicants claim that the Court should:

    —

    principally, annul the contested decision C(2020) 8286 final of 20 November 2020 concerning the amendment of the scheme SA.57712 — COVID-19: direct grant scheme to support the fixed costs for small and medium-sized enterprises affected by the COVID-19 outbreak (SA.59535 (2020/N)), both in so far as it relates to (a) the distinction between SMEs and other undertakings, and (b) the maximum amount of EUR 90 000;

    —

    in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to either (a) the distinction between SMEs and other undertakings, or (b) the maximum amount of EUR 90 000;

    —

    in the further alternative, annul the contested decision in its entirety;

    —

    additionally, order the Commission to bear the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging the failure of the Commission to open a formal investigation procedure by wrongly deciding that the contested State aid measure raises no doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging procedural shortcomings by the Commission, as the contested decision contains an inadequate statement of reasons.
    Top