- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-432/14: Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Remolcadores Nosa Terra and Hospital Povisa v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0432
62014TN0432
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 253/58
(Case T-432/14)
2014/C 253/78
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicants: Remolcadores Nosa Terra, SA (Vigo, Spain); and Hospital Povisa, SA (Vigo) (represented by: J. Otero Novas, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the General Court should:
—annul the contested decision in so far as it orders the recovery of the benefits that, according to the contested decision, the applicant companies received as members of various Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs); and
—order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-515/13 Commission v Spain.
In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following factual considerations:
The ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) constitutes an integrated whole, in which the various measures that make up that system — in themselves lawful or unlawful according to the Commission’s criteria — are essential to achieving the conclusion of naval construction contracts with Spanish shipyards.
Although the direct benefits characterised as unlawful by the Commission were granted to the participating EIGs, the entire system was conceived of and implemented so as to ensure that those benefits would be passed on to all the participants in the system: shipyards, EIGs, ship owners, organising banks and intermediary companies for various transactions.
The Commission, in its decision, ordered the State to recover the aid unlawfully granted, but only from the EIGs, thus excluding the other participants in the system from the burden of recovery.
The Commission failed to state reasons for its decision to exercise the option of recovery, or to explain why the burden of recovery should fall exclusively on the EIGs.
The decision that the burden of recovery should fall exclusively on the EIGs was made for reasons different from those justifying the granting to the Commission of the power to order such recovery.