- 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-103/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Frucona Košice v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0103
62014TN0103
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 112/53
(Case T-103/14)
2014/C 112/69
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Frucona Košice a.s. (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: K. Lasok, QC, B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss, lawyer, and J. Holmes, Barrister)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claim that the Court should:
—Annul the Commission decision C (2013) 6261 dated 16 October 2013 on State Aid No SA.18211 (C 25/2005) (ex NN 21/2005) addressed to the Slovak Republic; and
—Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s 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 that the contested decision was adopted in breach of the rights of defence.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in recital 83 of the contested decision.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in fact and law in concluding that it would have been more advantageous for the Slovak tax authorities to initiate a bankruptcy procedure (recitals 88-119 of the contested decision).
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in concluding that the tax execution procedure would have led to a higher return than under the arrangement procedure.