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-726/19: Action brought on 25 October 2019 – LSEGH (Luxembourg) and London Stock Exchange Group Holdings (Italy) v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0726

62019TN0726

October 25, 2019
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 19/55

(Case T-726/19)

(2020/C 19/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: LSEGH (Luxembourg) Ltd (London, United Kingdom), and London Stock Exchange Group Holdings (Italy) Ltd (London,) (represented by: O. Brouwer, A. Pliego Selie, and A. von Bonin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul the defendant’s decision of 2 April 2019 on the State aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption, C(2019) 2526 Final; and

order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment and failed to adequately state reasons in the identification in the contested decision of the reference system.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment and failed to adequately state reasons in wrongly characterising, in the contested decision, the Group Financing Exemption as a derogation from the normal operation of the reference system.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment in finding, in the contested decision, that the Group Financing Exemption discriminates between economic operators.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment, in the contested decision, in concluding that the Group Financing Exemption is not justified by the nature or overall structure of the reference system.

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