3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/55

(Case T-221/10)

(2010/C 179/94)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Iberdrola, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, M. Núñez Müller and J. Domínguez Pérez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

—Annulment of Article 1(1) of the Decision;

—Order the Commission to pay all of the costs arising from the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision which is the subject-matter of the present case is the same as in Case T-219/10 Autogrill España v Commission.

The pleas and main arguments are similar to those relied on in that case. In particular, the applicant claims:

—that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by finding that the measure in Article 12(5) TRLIS constitutes State aid which is incompatible with the internal market, given that it did not take account of the positive effects resulting from that measure and ignored the beneficial effect of that measure for the attainment of objectives pursued by other rules in the Treaty;

—that the Commission breached the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of equal treatment by departing from the guidelines in the Communication on direct taxation and its administrative practice adopted in line with that communication;

—that the Commission breached the principle of sound administration — which requires it to examine, in a diligent, detailed and impartial manner, all aspects relevant to the case — by not continuing the proceeding (as it has done in respect of extra-Community acquisitions) to establish the alleged selectivity of the measure and verify, before making a finding in that regard, the precise extent of the practical obstacles to an intra-Community commercial merger;

—that the Commission has infringed its obligation to respect the scheme of the Treaty and to ensure the consistent application of the rules relating to supervision of State aid and those relating to other principles and freedoms contained in the Treaty such as the free movement of capital and the creation of the internal market;

—that the contested decision lacks sufficient reasoning in relation to specific significant aspects of the Commission’s assessment of the measure’s selectivity and its effect on competition and trade between Member States.