EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/54

(Case T-713/22)

(2023/C 63/71)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicants: Portumo — Madeira — Montagem e Manutenção de Tubaria SA (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal), Ponticelli — Consultadoria Técnica SA (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal), Ponticelli Angoil — Serviços Para a Indústria Petrolífera SA (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal) (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez and P. Casillas Vázquez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

—annul 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); (1)

—in the alternative, annul Article 4(1) of the contested decision and the order to recover the aid contained therein;

—in the alternative, annul Article 4(1) of the contested decision and the order to recover the aid contained therein, due to the incorrect method used to determine the basis of the aid;

—order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that, by interpreting the concept of ‘activities effectively and materially performed in Madeira’ and ‘job creation/maintenance in the region’ restrictively, the Commission infringed Commission Decision of 27 June 2007 in Case N421/2006 and Commission Decision of 2 July 2013 in Case SA.34160 (2011/N), as well as the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013, Article 107(3)(a) TFEU, and Articles 21, 45, 49, 54 and 56 TFEU.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(3)(a) TFEU for failing to state directly that the aid scheme was compatible on the same basis.

Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that Article 4(1) of the contested decision is invalid, in so far as the recovery order contained therein infringes Article 16(1) of Regulation 2015/1589, in that it contravenes to the general principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

Fourth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that Article 4(1) of the contested decision is invalid, in so far as the calculation of the taxable base of the alleged State aid is incorrect.

*

Language of the case: Portuguese

(1) OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49.