- 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-258/24: Action brought on 14 May 2024 – Scandlines Danmark and Others v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024TN0258
62024TN0258
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
Official Journal of the European Union
EN
C series
—
C/2024/4482
22.7.2024
(Case T-258/24)
(C/2024/4482)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Scandlines Danmark ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark), Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), Stena Line Scandinavia AB (Gothenburg, Sweden), Trelleborgs Hamn AB (Trelleborg, Sweden), Rederi Aktiebolaget Nordö-Link (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—Annul European Commission decision C(2024) 959 final of 13 February 2024 on the measures State aid SA.52162 (2019/C) (ex 2018/FC) - Denmark and State aid SA.52617 (2019/C) (ex 2018/FC) – Sweden, implemented by Denmark and Sweden for Øresundsbro Konsortiet;
—Order the respondent to pay its own costs and the costs of the applicants.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred as the State guarantees do not constitute one single individual aid because each guarantee constitutes an individual aid and if not, then the aid was granted with each aid payment under each State guarantee. This plea is divided into three sub-pleas, in which the applicant argues as follows:
—First sub-plea: the consequence of the State guarantees not constituting an aid scheme is that each guarantee constitutes an individual aid;
—Second sub-plea: even if each State guarantee is not automatically considered as individual aid, it is so due to implementing measures;
—Third sub-plea: even if each State guarantee is not considered as individual aid because there are no implementing measures, then, in any case, the aid entailed in them was granted with each payment under each guarantee.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred because the contested decision authorises operating aid, in violation of the IPCEI Communication.
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4482/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—