EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018TN0257
Case T-257/18: Action brought on 24 Avril 2018 — Iberpotash v Commission
Case T-257/18: Action brought on 24 Avril 2018 — Iberpotash v Commission
Case T-257/18: Action brought on 24 Avril 2018 — Iberpotash v Commission
OJ C 221, 25.6.2018, p. 34–35
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
Case T-257/18: Action brought on 24 Avril 2018 — Iberpotash v Commission
Action brought on 24 Avril 2018 — Iberpotash v Commission
(Case T-257/18)
2018/C 221/40Language of the case: EnglishParties
Applicant: Iberpotash, SA (Suria, Spain) (represented by: N. Niejahr and B. Hoorelbeke. lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul Commission Decision (EU) 2018/118 of 31 August 2017 on State aid SA.35818 (2016/C) (ex 2015/NN) (ex 2012/CP) implemented by Spain for Iberpotash (notified under document C(2017) 5877); ( 1 ) |
— |
in the alternative:
|
— |
order the Commission to bear its own costs and the applicant’s costs in connection with the present proceedings. |
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 violated Article 107(1) TFEU by finding that Measure 1 involves a transfer of State resources. |
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by finding that Measure 1 confers a selective economic advantage on the applicant. In the alternative, it is alleged that the Commission failed to correctly determine the amount of unlawful and incompatible State aid, if any, arising from Measure 1, in violation of Article 16(1) of the Procedural Regulation. ( 2 ) |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the Commission violated Article 16(1) of the Procedural Regulation regarding Measure 1 by ordering recovery because such recovery violates the applicant’s legitimate expectations and/or the principle of legal certainty. |
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by finding that Measure 4 confers a selective economic advantage on the applicant. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law alleging, in the alternative, that the Commission violated Article 16(1) of the Procedural Regulation by failing to correctly determine the amount of unlawful and incompatible aid, if any, arising from Measure 4. |
( 1 ) OJ 2018 L 28, p. 25.
( 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 2015 L 248, p. 9).