# C_2011331EN.01002601.xml

| 12.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/26 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 9 September 2011 — Sarc v Commission

(Case T-488/11)

2011/C 331/50

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Scheepsbouwkundig Advies- en Rekencentrum (Sarc) BV (Bussum, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Speyart, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission decision C(2011) 642 final of 10 May 2011 given in the State aid proceedings NN 68/2010 declaring that the aid granted does not constitute State aid; and |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Order the European 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 five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging
—
that the Commission failed, where it should have done so, to open the formal investigation procedure within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU; | — | that the Commission failed, where it should have done so, to open the formal investigation procedure within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU; |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the Commission failed, where it should have done so, to open the formal investigation procedure within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU; | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging
—
that the Commission, in a further submission, failed to associate SARC in its preliminary assessment in a sufficient manner; | — | that the Commission, in a further submission, failed to associate SARC in its preliminary assessment in a sufficient manner; |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the Commission, in a further submission, failed to associate SARC in its preliminary assessment in a sufficient manner; | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging
—
that the Commission misapplied Article 107 (1) TFEU; | — | that the Commission misapplied Article 107 (1) TFEU; |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ---------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the Commission misapplied Article 107 (1) TFEU; | | |

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging
—
that the Commission failed, where it should have done so, to order the Dutch authorities to submit an evaluation, or to commission an independent evaluation; | — | that the Commission failed, where it should have done so, to order the Dutch authorities to submit an evaluation, or to commission an independent evaluation; |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the Commission failed, where it should have done so, to order the Dutch authorities to submit an evaluation, or to commission an independent evaluation; | | |

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging
—
that the Commission failed to reason its decision to the required standard. | — | that the Commission failed to reason its decision to the required standard. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | that the Commission failed to reason its decision to the required standard. | | |

---