- 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-726/16: Action brought on 13 October 2016 — VFP v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0726
62016TN0726
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
12.12.2016
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 462/33
(Case T-726/16)
(2016/C 462/43)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Vlaamse Federatie van Persverkopers VZW (VFP) (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. de Bandt, J. Dewispelaere and J. Probst, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—declare the application admissible;
—annul the decision of the European Commission of 3 June 2016, State Aid SA.42366 (2016/N) — Belgium — State compensations to bpost for the delivery of public services over 2016-2020 (1);
—refer the case back to the Commission for further investigation and a new decision;
—order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs; and
—take such other or further actions as justice may require.
Plea in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on one single plea in law alleging that the European Commission has violated its procedural rights by adopting the contested decision and not opening the formal procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU.
In this single plea it is explained that, in so far as the Commission encountered serious difficulties as regards the possible compatibility of the compensation for the press distribution Service of General Economic Interest (‘SGEI’) with the internal market, it was under the legal obligation to adopt a decision initiating the formal investigation procedure. This single plea is divided in four limbs. In particular, it is argued that the existence of the serious difficulties results from a body of consistent evidence concerning (i) the length of the preliminary examination and the special circumstances under which the aid was granted (first limb), (ii) the fact that the Commission’s analysis of the qualification of the distribution of recognised newspapers and periodicals as an SGEI is insufficient (second limb), (iii) the fact that the Commission’s analysis of the beneficiaries of the press distribution SGEI is incomplete (third limb) and (iv) the fact that the Commission’s analysis of the distortion of competition and the development of trade is incomplete and insufficient (fourth limb).
* Language of the case: English.
(1) OJ 2016, C 341, p. 5.