- 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-766/16: Action brought on 7 November 2006 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0766
62016TN0766
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
9.1.2017
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 6/48
(Case T-766/16)
(2017/C 006/60)
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: S. Rating and Y. Martínez Mata, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
—annul European Commission Decision C (2016) 4060 final; and
—order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The contested decision, in so far as it relates to Hércules, concerns a loan of EUR 18 million granted by a private body to the Fundación de la Comunidad Valenciana Hércules de Alicante, another private body, which used a substantial share of the amount loaned to subscribe for shares in Hércules CF in the context of a capital increase. That loan was guaranteed by a public financial body, namely the Institut Valencià de Finances.
The Commission claims that, as a result of that transaction, Hércules CF benefitted from State aid, amounting to the difference between the actual costs of the guaranteed loan and the costs which it would have incurred under ostensible market conditions, that difference being updated from the date on which the loan was issued to the date of the decision.
In support of the action, the applicant invokes three pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging misapplication of the Commission notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees.
—The applicant claims in this respect that it was not ‘a firm in difficulty’ within the meaning of the 2004 Guidelines and that the loan granted took into account the risk of default and the collateral of the loan.
2.Second plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging the lack of effect on competition and trade between Member States.
—Hercules CF claims in this respect that it was unable to compete in Europe and that the alleged aid did not confer upon it any competitive advantage.
3.Third plea in law, also raised in the alternative, alleging an incorrect valuation of hypothetical aid.