- 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-69/18: Action brought on 5 February 2018 — Verband Deutscher Alten- und Behindertenhilfe and CarePool Hannover v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0069
62018TN0069
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
26.3.2018
Official Journal of the European Union
C 112/44
(Case T-69/18)
(2018/C 112/56)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicants: Verband Deutscher Alten- und Behindertenhilfe, Landesverband Niedersachsen/Bremen und Hamburg/Schleswig-Holstein eV (Hanover, Germany) and CarePool Hannover GmbH (Hanover) (represented by: T. Unger, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—annul Commission Decision C(2017) 7686 final of 23 November 2017, with regard to State aid SA.42268 (2017/E) — Deutschland Staatliche Beihilfe zur Förderung wohlfahrtspflegerischer Aufgaben (Germany State aid for the promotion of social welfare projects) and SA.42877 (2017/E) — Deutschland CarePool Hannover GmbH, and
—order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging an infringement of procedural rights
The infringement of procedural requirements within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU follows from the fact that the defendant decided, despite serious difficulties with the assessment of the factual and legal situation, not to initiate the formal investigation procedure. In particular, the length, the quality of the defendant’s reasoning and its conduct during the contested State aid procedure support the need to initiate the formal investigation procedure in order to address the serious difficulties of assessing the issue.
2.Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU
A further infringement of the procedural requirements results from the fact that the contested decision is insufficiently reasoned and therefore is not compatible with the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.
3.Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 107f TFEU
Further, there is an infringement of Article 107f TFEU, since the defendant mistakenly assumes that there is an existing measure. The contested subsidies are new measures, which satisfy the conditions for State aid.