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-135/17: Action brought on 28 February 2017 — Scor v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0135

62017TN0135

February 28, 2017
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

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/50

(Case T-135/17)

(2017/C 144/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Scor SE (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Baverez, N. Autet, M. Béas and G. Marson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

annul point ‘(i) an unlimited guarantee granted to the Caisse Centrale de Réassurance (CCR) for its business of reinsuring the risks of natural disasters in France’ of State aid Decision SA.37649 (2013/CP); SA.45860 (2016/PN); SA.45860 (2016/N) — France of 26 September 2016, C(2016) 5995 final;

order the Commission to pay all of the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, based on the contention that the contested decision rests on an incorrect legal basis for the purpose of assessing the compatibility of the guarantee granted to the Caisse Centrale de Réassurance.

2.Second plea in law, alleging several failures to state reasons which vitiate the contested decision.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. This plea is divided into two parts:

first part, alleging errors of law relating to the application of the proportionality test;

second part, alleging that the guarantee is disproportionate in nature.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s procedural rights.

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