- 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-392/14: Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Gutser v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0392
62014TN0392
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
28.7.2014
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 245/28
(Case T-392/14)
2014/C 245/38
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Gutser, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.C. García Muñoz, J.I. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the contested decision;
—order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-515/13 Commission v Spain, relating to the tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements, also known as the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an infringement of essential procedural requirements and that it infringes Articles 20, 21 and 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that it was adopted following an investigation procedure in which there were substantial irregularities.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 107 and 108 TFEU in considering that the measures at issue constitute State aid, without having proved their selective nature.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 107 and 108 TFEU in considering that the measures at issue constitute State aid, without having proved their effect on inter-Community trade.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and infringed Article 107 TFEU in characterising the investors as beneficiaries of the aid. In addition, the decision is not supported by a sufficient statement of reasons.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in ordering the recovery of the aid in breach of the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment, as well as Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.