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-157/12: Action brought on 5 April 2012 — IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0157

62012TN0157

April 5, 2012
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

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/15

(Case T-157/12)

2012/C 184/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IFP Energies nouvelles (Rueil-Malmaison, France) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and A. Noël-Baron, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Commission Decision C(2011) 4483 final of 29 June 2011 relating to State aid No NN C 35/2008 (ex NN 11/2008) granted by France to the public body, the Institut Français du Pétrole (French Petroleum Institute; ‘IFP’), in its entirety.

order the Commission to pay the costs.

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 error in law, in that the Commission exceeded the limits on its powers to interpret national law under the legislation governing State aid.

2.Second plea in law, alleging failure by the Commission to establish the existence of a real economic advantage conferred on the applicant and its private-law subsidiaries.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, in that the reference in the contested decision to the 2008 Commission Notice on guarantees is not in itself sufficient to establish the existence of an economic advantage.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment in the determination of the alleged advantage and the intensity of the presumed State aid.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, first, in making the creation of an industrial and commercial public body (EPIC) subject to an obligation of prior notification and, second, in imposing overly restrictive conditions.

Commission Notice on the application of Articles [107 TFEU] and [108 TFEU] of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (OJ 2008 C 155, p. 10).

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