# C_2011282EN.01003202.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/32 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 22 July 2011 — Nitrogénművek Vegyipari v Commission

(Case T-387/11)

2011/C 282/65

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nitrogénművek Vegyipari Zrt. (Pétfürdő, Republic of Hungary) (represented by: Z. Tamás and M. Le Berre, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested Commission Decision of 27 October 2010 on State aid C 14/09 (ex NN 17/09) granted by Hungary to Péti Nitrogénművek Zrt. (notified under document C(2010) 7274); and |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Order the Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred by the applicant. |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging
—
the Commission's failure to apply the market transaction principle; | — | the Commission's failure to apply the market transaction principle; |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the Commission's failure to apply the market transaction principle; | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging
—
that the contested decision was issued in violation of Article 107(1) TFEU; | — | that the contested decision was issued in violation of Article 107(1) TFEU; |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the contested decision was issued in violation of Article 107(1) TFEU; | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging
—
that the contested decision was issued in violation of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and Article 296 TFEU; | — | that the contested decision was issued in violation of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and Article 296 TFEU; |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the contested decision was issued in violation of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union and Article 296 TFEU; | | |

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging
—
that the contested decision was issued in violation of Article 41(1) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union; | — | that the contested decision was issued in violation of Article 41(1) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union; |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the contested decision was issued in violation of Article 41(1) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union; | | |

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging
—
that the contested decision was issued in violation of principle of the protection of legitimate expectations; | — | that the contested decision was issued in violation of principle of the protection of legitimate expectations; |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the contested decision was issued in violation of principle of the protection of legitimate expectations; | | |

| 6. | Sixth plea in law (as alternative to the first and second pleas), alleging
—
that the contested decision was issued in violation of Article 107(3)(b)TFEU. | — | that the contested decision was issued in violation of Article 107(3)(b)TFEU. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the contested decision was issued in violation of Article 107(3)(b)TFEU. | | |

---