# C_2014112EN.01005201.xml

| 14.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/52

---

Action brought on 10 February 2014 — British Aggregates v Commission

(Case T-101/14)

2014/C 112/67

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: British Aggregates Association (Lanark, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Van den Hende, lawyer, and L. Geary, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Order the annulment pursuant to Article 263 TFEU of the Commission Decision of 31 July 2013 C(2013) 4901 final published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 28 November 2013 in Case SA.34775 (ex N863/2001) — Aggregates Levy; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the annulment pursuant to Article 263 TFEU of the Commission Decision of 31 July 2013 C(2013) 4901 final published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 28 November 2013 in Case SA.34775 (ex N863/2001) — Aggregates Levy;

| — | Order that the defendant pay the applicant's costs in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the defendant pay the applicant's costs in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made a manifest error of assessment in deciding that three exemptions under the Finance Act 2001 do not result in selectivity and therefore do not result in State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made a manifest error of assessment in deciding that three exemptions under the Finance Act 2001 do not result in selectivity and therefore do not result in State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to state reasons for the contested decision as required by Article 296 TFEU because the Commission has not explained why the different treatment of similar situations does not constitute State aid. Further, the reasoning put forward by the Commission is contradictory on the face of the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to state reasons for the contested decision as required by Article 296 TFEU because the Commission has not explained why the different treatment of similar situations does not constitute State aid. Further, the reasoning put forward by the Commission is contradictory on the face of the contested decision.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed its duty to initiate the formal investigation procedure in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU, as this is not a case where the Commission can reach a firm view that a measure does not result in aid, without necessitating a detailed examination of the matter. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed its duty to initiate the formal investigation procedure in accordance with Article 108(3) TFEU, as this is not a case where the Commission can reach a firm view that a measure does not result in aid, without necessitating a detailed examination of the matter.

---