- 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-284/15: Action brought on 1 June 2015 — AlzChem/Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0284
62015TN0284
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
14.9.2015
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 302/55
(Case T-284/15)
(2015/C 302/71)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: AlzChem AG (Trostberg, Germany) (represented by: P. Alexiadis, Solicitor, A. Borsos and I. Georgiopoulos, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—declare the application admissible and well founded;
—annul Article 2 of the Commission decision of 15 October 2014 under Articles 107(1) and 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on State aid SA.33797 — (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Slovakia for NCHZ;
—order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in finding that the continued operation of NCHZ under the decision of the creditors’ committee did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU
—The Commission erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in finding that no advantage was conferred onto Novácke chemické závody, a.s. v konkurze (NCHZ) while its operations were maintained after the decision of the creditors’ committee and the secured creditors. The Commission also erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the decision of the creditors’ committee and the secured creditors to continue the operations of NCHZ is not imputable to the State.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the duty to state reasons, enshrined in Article 296 TFEU, with regard to the imputability to the State of the decision of the creditors’ committee and the secured creditors
—The Commission failed to provide reasons in relation to the approval of the decision of the creditors’ committee and the secured creditors by the Trenčín Court. The Commission also failed to provide reasons in relation to the veto rights of the secured creditors regarding the continuation of NCHZ’s operations under Slovak bankruptcy law.