- 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-718/22: Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Eutelsat Madeira v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022TN0718
62022TN0718
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
23.1.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 24/61
(Case T-718/22)
(2023/C 24/84)
Language of the case: Portuguese
Parties
Applicant: Eutelsat Madeira, Unipessoal Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Caniçal, Portugal) (represented by: R. Bordalo Junqueiro, J.P. Lampreia, R.F. Costa and P.G. Marques, advogados)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
—recognise that the applicant has a legitimate interest in bringing the present action for annulment for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU;
—consider its action for annulment to have been brought in due form and to be admissible, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU;
—annul the contested decision in accordance with Article 264 TFEU;
—order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its action for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons.
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty, in so far as the contested decision alters the terms of an aid scheme authorised and consistently implemented for several decades.
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and of equal treatment in so far as the contested decision treats equally the beneficiaries that contributed towards the attainment of the objectives of Regime III and those that did not.
Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law in the assessment of the compatibility of Regime III of the Zona Franca de Madeira (Madeira Free Zone) with Commission Decision C(2007) 3037 final and the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013.