- 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-464/22: Action brought on 20 July 2022 — QN v European Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0464
62022TN0464
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
26.9.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 368/27
(Case T-464/22)
(2022/C 368/46)
Language of the case: Portuguese
Parties
Applicant: QN (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;
—order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment regarding fulfilment of the requirements for the compatibility of the aid scheme Zona Franca da Madeira — Regime III (‘ZFM’), in particular as regards the origin of the profits and the creation and maintenance of jobs in the region.
2.Second plea in law, alleging undue delay on the part of the Commission in amending the successive versions of the ZFM scheme as regards the type of employment relationship, the criterion for calculating the number of jobs created/maintained and the geographical location of the jobs.
3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the decision adopted is not sufficiently reasoned as regards the meaning of ZFM jobs and as regards the activity effectively and materially performed in Madeira.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a fair trial and of the principle of equality of arms, due to the delay on the part of the Commission in correcting parts of the ZFM legal framework and the short time limit allowed for the applicant to exercise its rights of defence.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of legitimate expectations, due to the delayed action on the part of the Commission and the content of the contested decision.
6.Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty, due to the delayed action on the part of the Commission and the amendment of the State aid scheme in place for a certain regulatory period.