- 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-12/15: Action brought on 13 January 2015 — Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0012
62015TN0012
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
9.3.2015
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 81/24
(Case T-12/15)
(2015/C 081/32)
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicants: Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) and Santusa Holding, SL (Boadilla del Monte, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and J. Panero Rivas, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the General Court should:
—admit and uphold the grounds for annulment set out in this application;
—annul Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it declares that the new administrative interpretation of Article 12 TRLIS [texto refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades (consolidated version of the Spanish law on corporate tax)] adopted by the Spanish administration must be regarded as State aid which is incompatible with the internal market;
—annul Article 4.1 of the contested decision in so far as it requires the Kingdom of Spain to put an end to the alleged aid scheme as described in Article 1;
—annul parts 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 4 of the contested decision in so far as they require the Kingdom of Spain to recover the amounts considered by the Commission to be State aid;
—in the alternative, limit the scope of the recovery obligation imposed on the Kingdom of Spain in Article 4.2 of the contested decision in the same terms as in the First and Second Decisions; and
—order to the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-826/14 Spain v Commission.
The applicants claim, in particular, that the Commission erred in law in the legal classification of the measure as State aid, in the identification of the beneficiary of the measure and in the characterisation of the administrative interpretation as State aid distinct from that examined in the Commission’s decisions, and that it breached the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, of estoppel and of legal certainty.