# C_2014245EN.01002801.xml

| 28.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/28

---

Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Gutser v Commission

(Case T-392/14)

2014/C 245/38

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gutser, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.C. García Muñoz, J.I. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-515/13 Commission v Spain, relating to the tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements, also known as the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’.

Commission

Spain

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an infringement of essential procedural requirements and that it infringes Articles 20, 21 and 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that it was adopted following an investigation procedure in which there were substantial irregularities. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an infringement of essential procedural requirements and that it infringes Articles 20, 21 and 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that it was adopted following an investigation procedure in which there were substantial irregularities.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 107 and 108 TFEU in considering that the measures at issue constitute State aid, without having proved their selective nature. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 107 and 108 TFEU in considering that the measures at issue constitute State aid, without having proved their selective nature.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 107 and 108 TFEU in considering that the measures at issue constitute State aid, without having proved their effect on inter-Community trade. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 107 and 108 TFEU in considering that the measures at issue constitute State aid, without having proved their effect on inter-Community trade.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and infringed Article 107 TFEU in characterising the investors as beneficiaries of the aid. In addition, the decision is not supported by a sufficient statement of reasons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and infringed Article 107 TFEU in characterising the investors as beneficiaries of the aid. In addition, the decision is not supported by a sufficient statement of reasons.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in ordering the recovery of the aid in breach of the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment, as well as Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in ordering the recovery of the aid in breach of the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment, as well as Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.

---