# C_2015138EN.01005102.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/51

---

Action brought on 23 December 2014 — Søndagsavisen v Commission

(Case T-833/14)

(2015/C 138/68)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Søndagsavisen A/S (Søborg, Denmark) (represented by: M. Honoré, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 9 July 2014 not to raise objections to the tax exemption for certain advertisements (SA.35683); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 9 July 2014 not to raise objections to the tax exemption for certain advertisements (SA.35683);

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a competitor of the aid recipient, has submitted that the Commission ought to have found that there were doubts as to whether tax exemptions on non-nominative advertising material and subscription newspapers delivered to households constituted aid.

The applicant submits that the Commission accordingly ought to have decided to institute the formal investigation procedure, see Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999 (1). In failing to do so, the Commission disregarded the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108, stk. 2, TFEU.

1

The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of its argument that there were reasonable doubts:

| — | the time the Commission took to handle the case was extraordinarily long and in itself shows that there was reasonable doubt — not least since it involved a notified aid scheme under Article 108(3) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

the time the Commission took to handle the case was extraordinarily long and in itself shows that there was reasonable doubt — not least since it involved a notified aid scheme under Article 108(3) TFEU;

| — | the Commission’s decision is vitiated by a lack of statement of reasons for the tax exemptions on non-nominative advertising material and subscription newspapers delivered to households; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission’s decision is vitiated by a lack of statement of reasons for the tax exemptions on non-nominative advertising material and subscription newspapers delivered to households; and

| — | the Commission conducted an incomplete and incorrect examination of the Danish legislation on advertising taxes in determining whether the tax exemptions on non-nominative advertising material and subscription newspapers delivered to households gave rise to State aid. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission conducted an incomplete and incorrect examination of the Danish legislation on advertising taxes in determining whether the tax exemptions on non-nominative advertising material and subscription newspapers delivered to households gave rise to State aid.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, s. 1).

1

---