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-702/15: Action brought on 3 December 2015 — BikeWorld v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0702

62015TN0702

December 3, 2015
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

22.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/30

(Case T-702/15)

(2016/C 068/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: BikeWorld GmbH (St. Ingbert, Germany) (represented by: J. Jovy, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the Commission’s decision of 1 October 2014 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

suspend the enforcement of the decision vis-à-vis the applicant until the present action has been decided on (Article 278 TFEU).

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2014) 3634 final of 1 October 2014 on German State aid granted to the Nürburgring (SA.31550 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN)).

In support of the action, the applicant relies, in essence, on the following:

1.The applicant is no longer identical to the party to the proceedings in which the decision was adopted. No proceedings could therefore be brought against it.

2.The applicant was not a party to the proceedings that led to the adoption of the contested decision. Its right to a fair hearing was therefore not respected.

3.The applicant’s current shareholders are not remotely connected to the original shareholders/owners at the time that the loans were granted.

4.The objective ‘to prevent particular competitive advantages’ sought by the recovery cannot be attained by the decision, for the applicant has not been in competition with anyone and that has been the case since the last loan was granted.

5.The applicant has already agreed to its liquidation and winding-up, should that prove necessary, in order to avoid imminent insolvency, which would not be avoidable, if it had to make any payment on the basis of the recovery of State aid.

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