EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-3/14: Action brought on 2 January 2014 — Anudal Industrial v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0003

62014TN0003

January 2, 2014
With Google you find a lot.
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

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/50

(Case T-3/14)

2014/C 52/96

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Anudal Industrial, SL (Badalona, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

annul Articles 1 to 6 of the Decision;

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the Decision in so far as it orders recovery of the aid; and

order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-515/13 Spain v Commission.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.The contested decision is vitiated by breach of essential procedural requirements and infringement of Articles 20, 21 and 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that it was adopted following an investigation procedure in which there were substantial irregularities.

2.Error of law: infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission found that the measures covered by the present proceedings constitute State aid, without establishing that they were selective.

3.Error of law: infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission found that the measures covered by the present proceedings constitute State aid, without establishing that they affect Community trade.

4.Error of law: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and failure to state reasons, inasmuch as the Commission found that there was State aid and categorised the Economic Interest Groupings and their investors as beneficiaries, in circumstances in which the aid neither confers competitive advantages on those parties nor affects trade between Member States in their respective sectors.

5.Error of law in ordering recovery of the alleged aid in breach of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment, as well as of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia