- 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-228/19: Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0228
62019TN0228
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
17.6.2019
Official Journal of the European Union
C 206/82
(Case T-228/19)
(2019/C 206/73)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Kachel and D. Fouquet, lawyers)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1) in respect of the years 2012 and 2013;
—in the alternative, annul Decision SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) of 28 May 2018 notified under document C(2018) 3166 as against the applicant in respect of the years 2012 and 2013; and
—order the defendant to pay the costs, including lawyers’ fees and travel expenses.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The application is based on the following grounds.
1.Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU
In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.
In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.
It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.
2.Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
In the second plea in law, it is claimed that, in view of the particular circumstances, the applicant could expect to be allowed to retain the special network charges granted.