31.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/30

(Case T-309/17)

(2017/C 249/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Organisation professionnelle des transports de l’Île de France (Optile) (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Thiriez and M. Dangibeaud, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—Principally, annul in part Article 1 of European Commission Decision SA.26763 of 2 February 2017 concerning presumed aid granted to public transport undertakings by the Île-de-France region, but only insofar as it deems the aid scheme implemented by the Île-de-France region from 1979 until 2008 constituted a new aid scheme ‘unlawfully implemented’;

—In the alternative, annul in part Article 1 of European Commission Decision SA.26763 of 2 February 2017 concerning presumed aid granted to public transport undertakings by the Île-de-France region in that it holds that the aid scheme was ‘unlawfully implemented’ between May 1994 and 25 December 2008.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that Commission Decision SA.26763 (ex 2012/NN) of 2 February 2017 concerning presumed aid granted to public transport undertakings by the Île-de-France region (C(2017) 439 final; ‘the contested decision’) held that the scheme examined constituted a new aid scheme. In that regard, the applicant puts forward the following complaints:

—disregard of Article 1(b)(i) of Council Regulation (EU) No 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; ‘Regulation No 2015/1589’), insofar as the legal basis of the scheme examined predates the Treaty of Rome;

—insufficient reasoning in the light of Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation No 2015/1589;

—error in fact and in law as regards the date of liberalisation of the market.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision classifies the scheme as a new aid scheme for the period of 1994 to 1998. In that context, the applicant alleges:

—infringement of the procedural rights of the parties and of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in that the Commission extended the scope of its investigation beyond the framework laid down by the opening decision;

—infringement of Article 17 of Regulation No 2015/1589, in that the Commission took the view that an application for repeal made by a private individual interrupted the limitation period.