- 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-1/14: Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Aluminios Cortizo and Cortizo Cartera v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0001
62014TN0001
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 52/49
(Case T-1/14)
2014/C 52/94
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicants: Aluminios Cortizo, SAU (Extramundi, Spain) and Cortizo Cartera, SL (Extramundi, Spain) (represented by: A. Beiras Cal, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the General Court should:
—annul the contested decision in its entirety;
—in the alternative, annul the order to reimburse the State aid; and
—in the further alternative, quantify that aid in accordance with the investor’s actual net profit.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The contested decision in the present proceedings is the same as that in Case T-515/13 Spain v Commission (OJ 2013 C 336, p. 29).
In support of their action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, since the State aid granted to the investor entailed neither selectivity nor distortion.
2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU on the basis of the complete failure to state reasons for the exclusion of the ship-owner and/or shipyard as the recipient of the bulk of the aid.
3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality — in connection with the loss of profit — in requiring the investor to reimburse aid which was transferred to a third party.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, since the Commission, through letters of the Commissioner, and by its inactivity, gave rise to the legitimate appearance that the ‘SEAF’ was lawful.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty, since the imposition of a duty to reimburse aid which was not received/transferred by the investor constitutes confiscation without any legal basis.
6.Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, since the measures declared to be incompatible were allowed in other proceedings.