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-261/11: Action brought on 20 May 2011 — European Goldfields v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0261

62011TN0261

May 20, 2011
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

23.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 219/18

(Case T-261/11)

2011/C 219/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Goldfields Ltd (Whitehorse, Canada) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, E. Petritsi, E. Trova and P. Skouris, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Annul European Commission’s Decision of 23 February 2011 in case C 48/2008 (ex NN 61/2008), regarding State aid which Greece has implemented in favour of Ellinikos Xryssos, in particular Articles 1 to 5 thereof; and

Order the defendant to bear the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed several manifest errors in establishing and assessing the underlying facts of the case that materially affected the Commission’s application and interpretation of the condition of the existence of an economic advantage to Ellinikos Xryssos, pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors in law in its application and interpretation of the State aid definition element relating to the existence of an economic advantage, pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU, as the Commission erroneously applied, or misapplied, the relevant market economy investor principle.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed several manifest errors in law in its application and interpretation of the condition of the existence of an economic advantage, pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU, by establishing such an economic advantage by reference to the Commission’s own unfounded, selective and arbitrary arguments regarding the alleged value of the transferred assets.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors in law in the application and interpretation of the condition of the existence of an economic advantage, pursuant to Article 107 (1) TFEU, as it erroneously found that the alleged waiver of taxes in favour of Ellinikos Xryssos constituted an economic advantage.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements and misused its power, resulting in a breach of its obligation to carry out a diligent and impartial examination of the case.

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