EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/23

(Case T-126/20)

(2020/C 129/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Autoridad Portuaria de Bilboa (Spain) (represented by: D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero and X. Codina García-Andrade, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—as its main claim, declare the contested decision null and void;

—in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision of the European Commission of 8 January 2019 (C (2018) 8676 final, on the taxation of ports in Spain and against the decisions of the European Commission C (2019) 1765 final of 7 March 2019 and C (2019) 8068 final of 15 November 2019 (‘the contested decisions’).

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five plea(s) in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in so far as the tax exemption does not constitute an advantage.

In support of the first plea in law, the applicant claims that the tax exemption measures which are the subject of the contested decisions do not constitute an economic advantage, while the abolition of that exemption imposes an economic burden on the Port Authority given it continuing obligation to finance investments in the public interest from its resources.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, together with Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as the Commission, when examining the existence of an advantage, failed to carry out a complete analysis of the available data.

In support of the second plea in law, the applicant claims that the European Commission, when evaluating whether the exemption measures which are the subject of the contested decisions constitute an advantage, failed to carry out a comprehensive analysis of the data supplied during the proceedings by the Port Authority.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in so far as the tax exemption does not distort or threaten to distort competition or affect trade between Member States.

In support of the third plea in law, the applicant submits that the exemption measures which are the subject of the contested decisions do not improve the competitive position of the Port Authorities and therefore, it is impossible for competition to affect trade between Member States. Therefore, it does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in so far as the tax exemption is not selective.

In support of the fourth plea in law, the applicant claims that the exemption measures which are the subject of the exemption measures are not selective since they do not constitute an exception to the reference system, therefore such measure do not constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 107 TFEU.

5.Fifth plea in law, in the alternative, alleging that the tax exemptions at issue, even if they constitute State aid, are compatible with the internal market.

In support of the fifth plea in law, pleaded in the alternative, the applicant claims that, even if the tax exemptions which are the subject of the contested decisions were to be considered State aid, they constitute aid which is compatible with the internal market.