# C_2014061EN.01002101.xml

| 1.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/21

---

Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Banco Popular Español v Commission

(Case T-31/14)

2014/C 61/38

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Banco Popular Español, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Navarro Varona, P. Vidal Martínez, J. López-Quiroga Teijero and G. Canalejo Lasarte, 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 the decision establishes the existence of State aid and orders its recovery from the investors; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision under Article 263 TFEU in so far as the decision establishes the existence of State aid and orders its recovery from the investors;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1, 2 and 4(1) of the decision, inasmuch as they identify the investors as beneficiaries who have to repay the alleged aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1, 2 and 4(1) of the decision, inasmuch as they identify the investors as beneficiaries who have to repay the alleged aid;

| — | in the alternative, declare inapplicable the order, in Article 4(1), for recovery of the aid from the investors, inasmuch as it is contrary to the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations since recovery may not be ordered from a date earlier than the publication of the decision to initiate [the formal investigation procedure]; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, declare inapplicable the order, in Article 4(1), for recovery of the aid from the investors, inasmuch as it is contrary to the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations since recovery may not be ordered from a date earlier than the publication of the decision to initiate [the formal investigation procedure];

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the decision and declare invalid the methodology for determining the alleged advantage [conferred] to be repaid by the investors; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the decision and declare invalid the methodology for determining the alleged advantage [conferred] to be repaid by the investors;

| — | declare non-existent or, in the alternative, annul in part Article 4(1) of the decision relating to the prohibition on ‘transfer[ring] the burden of recovery on other subjects’, inasmuch as this amounts to a decision on the prohibition or presumed invalidity of the contractual clauses on recovery from third parties of the amounts the investors have to repay to the Spanish State; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or, in the alternative, annul in part Article 4(1) of the decision relating to the prohibition on ‘transfer[ring] the burden of recovery on other subjects’, inasmuch as this amounts to a decision on the prohibition or presumed invalidity of the contractual clauses on recovery from third parties of the amounts the investors have to repay to the Spanish State; and

| — | 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 decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-29/14 Taetel v Commission.

Taetel

Commission

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in that case.

---