# C_2014292EN.01004801.xml

| 1.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/48

---

Action brought on 6 June 2014 — Larko v Commission

(Case T-423/14)

2014/C 292/59

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Larko Geniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: Ι. Drullerakes, Ε. Τriandafyllou, G. Psaroudakis, Ε. Randos, Ν. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | uphold this action in its entirety;· |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold this action in its entirety;·

| — | declare null and void the Commission Decision of 27/03/2014 [SG-Greffe (2014) D/4621/28/03/2014] on State aid implemented by the Hellenic Republic in favour of the applicant (No SA.34572 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN);· |
| --- | --- |

—

declare null and void the Commission Decision of 27/03/2014 [SG-Greffe (2014) D/4621/28/03/2014] on State aid implemented by the Hellenic Republic in favour of the applicant (No SA.34572 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN);·

| — | order that whatever amount may have been ‘recovered’ directly or indirectly from the applicant in execution of the contested decision be reimbursed with interest and, |
| --- | --- |

—

order that whatever amount may have been ‘recovered’ directly or indirectly from the applicant in execution of the contested decision be reimbursed with interest and,

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

| 1. | The first plea in law is based on the infringement by the defendant of Articles 107(1) and 296 TFEU since: (a) the aid measures 2, 3, 4 and 6 cannot be categorised as State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU and (b) even if some of the aid measures 2, 3, 4 and 6 could be categorised as constituting State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, that aid is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first plea in law is based on the infringement by the defendant of Articles 107(1) and 296 TFEU since: (a) the aid measures 2, 3, 4 and 6 cannot be categorised as State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU and (b) even if some of the aid measures 2, 3, 4 and 6 could be categorised as constituting State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, that aid is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3) TFEU.

| 2. | The second plea in law is based on the erroneous application, for which no reasons are stated, of the criteria in the Commission Notice on guarantees [OJ 2008 C 155, p. 10] and infringement of the principle of proportionality in respect of the characterisation of measures 2, 4 and 6 as State aid and in respect of the quantification of the aid element. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second plea in law is based on the erroneous application, for which no reasons are stated, of the criteria in the Commission Notice on guarantees [OJ 2008 C 155, p. 10] and infringement of the principle of proportionality in respect of the characterisation of measures 2, 4 and 6 as State aid and in respect of the quantification of the aid element.

| 3. | The third plea in law is based on an insufficient statement of reasons and infringement of the principle of good administration by reason of the failure to take into account, in the assessment of measures 3, 4 and 6, of the damage which was caused to the applicant by the exceptional occurrences of 2009, which meets the conditions for the application of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third plea in law is based on an insufficient statement of reasons and infringement of the principle of good administration by reason of the failure to take into account, in the assessment of measures 3, 4 and 6, of the damage which was caused to the applicant by the exceptional occurrences of 2009, which meets the conditions for the application of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU.

| 4. | The fourth plea in law is based on an insufficient statement of reasons and infringement of the principle of good administration by reason of the failure to take into account the circumstances of the Greek economic crisis and the consequent cessation of payment by the Greek State of benefits in favour of the applicant, as an exceptional occurrence within the meaning of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The fourth plea in law is based on an insufficient statement of reasons and infringement of the principle of good administration by reason of the failure to take into account the circumstances of the Greek economic crisis and the consequent cessation of payment by the Greek State of benefits in favour of the applicant, as an exceptional occurrence within the meaning of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU.

| 5. | The fifth plea in law in support of annulment is based on the errors in section 4.5 and in the operative part of the contested decision, as regards the amount to be recovered: infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 14 of Regulation No 659/1999, an insufficient statement of reasons, infringement of the principle of proportionality, breach of the right to property and the punitive character of the order for recovery. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The fifth plea in law in support of annulment is based on the errors in section 4.5 and in the operative part of the contested decision, as regards the amount to be recovered: infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 14 of Regulation No 659/1999, an insufficient statement of reasons, infringement of the principle of proportionality, breach of the right to property and the punitive character of the order for recovery.

---