EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-278/16: Action brought on 31 May 2016 — Atlas Copco Airpower and Atlas Copco v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0278

62016TN0278

May 31, 2016
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/34

(Case T-278/16)

(2016/C 279/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Atlas Copco Airpower (Antwerp, Belgium) and Atlas Copco AB (Nacka, Sweden) (represented by: A. von Bonin, A. Haelterman and O. Brouwer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul the decision of the European Comission of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN);

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging an error of law and manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged state aid measure and its classification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of 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 and Article 107 TFUE.

2.Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFUE in holding that the Excess Profits adjustments system constitutes State aid.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the identification of the beneficiaries of the alleged aid, inconsistency in holding the multinational groups as beneficiaries and violation of the principle of legality and Article 16(1) of 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.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and sound administration.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia