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 62012TN0319

Case T-319/12: Action brought on 19 July 2012 — Spain v Commission

SL C 287, 22.9.2012, p. 32–32 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/32

Action brought on 19 July 2012 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-319/12)

2012/C 287/60

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

Annul European Commission Decision C(2012) of 8 May 2012 concerning State Aid SA 22668 (C 8/2008 — ex NN 4/2008), granted by Spain to ‘Ciudad de la Luz SA’;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

Incorrect application of the private investor test, since the Commission went beyond the bounds of its margin of assessment when carrying out its analysis.

2.

Error in the assessment of the State aid on account of a failure to take into account actions in the tertiary part of the complex.

3.

Failure of the contested decision to state reasons in so far as the Commission requires recovery of the aid granted to film producers and in so far as its analysis makes no mention of that alleged aid.

4.

In the alternative, error in the analysis of the compatibility of the investment with the Guidelines on National Regional aid, since the Commission failed to consider whether the remaining aid complied with the private investor principle.

5.

In the alternative, failure to state reasons and error in the analysis of the compatibility of the aid, in the light of the rules applicable to aid in the audiovisual sector, since the Commission failed to consider why the alleged aid was not intended for cultural purposes.
Top