# C_2014303EN.01004901.xml

| 8.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/49

---

Action brought on 9 July 2014 — Hispavima v Commission

(Case T-514/14)

2014/C 303/57

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hispavima, SL (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: A. Ward, A. Barba and J. Torrecilla, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision under Article 263 TFEU in so far as it declares the existence of State aid and orders its recovery from the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision under Article 263 TFEU in so far as it declares the existence of State aid and orders its recovery from the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs);

| — | in the alternative, uphold the applicant’s claims and declare void the provision laid down in Article 4.1 of the decision, in fine, ordering recovery of the alleged aid, for infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations, since, in any event, recovery of the aid cannot be ordered with effect from before the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision to open formal proceedings, on 21 September 2011; in addition, acknowledge that the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations applies to those EIGs that fulfilled the objective requirements for the application of the contested tax advantages prior to the publication of the 2006 decision in the Official Journal; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, uphold the applicant’s claims and declare void the provision laid down in Article 4.1 of the decision, in fine, ordering recovery of the alleged aid, for infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations, since, in any event, recovery of the aid cannot be ordered with effect from before the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision to open formal proceedings, on 21 September 2011; in addition, acknowledge that the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations applies to those EIGs that fulfilled the objective requirements for the application of the contested tax advantages prior to the publication of the 2006 decision in the Official Journal;

in fine

Official Journal of the European Union

| — | annul in part Article 2 of the decision and declare unlawful the methodology, set out in paragraphs 263 to 269 of the decision, used to determine the alleged advantage to be reimbursed by the investors, which should have included a series of deductions that were not taken into account; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part Article 2 of the decision and declare unlawful the methodology, set out in paragraphs 263 to 269 of the decision, used to determine the alleged advantage to be reimbursed by the investors, which should have included a series of deductions that were not taken into account;

| — | annul in part Article 4.1 of the decision, since the Commission clearly acted ultra vires in declaring invalid, in Article 4.1 of the decision, contractual terms providing for compensation to be paid to the investors in the event that the tax advantages of the Spanish Tax Lease system were declared to be unlawful State aid; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part Article 4.1 of the decision, since the Commission clearly acted ultra vires in declaring invalid, in Article 4.1 of the decision, contractual terms providing for compensation to be paid to the investors in the event that the tax advantages of the Spanish Tax Lease system were declared to be unlawful State aid; and

ultra vires

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera v Commission, Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission and Case T-500/14 Derivados del Flúor v Commission

Duro Felguera

Commission

Bankia

Commission

Derivados del Flúor

Commission

---