# C_2012025EN.01006302.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/63

---

Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Dansk Automat Brancheforening v Commission

(Case T-601/11)

(2012/C 25/121)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Dansk Automat Brancheforening (Fredericia, Denmark) (represented by: K. Dyekjær, T. Høg and J. Flodgaard)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 20 September 2011 in Case No C 35/2010 (ex N 302/2010) on measures which Denmark is planning to implement in the form of duties for online gaming in the Danish Gaming Duties Act. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 20 September 2011 in Case No C 35/2010 (ex N 302/2010) on measures which Denmark is planning to implement in the form of duties for online gaming in the Danish Gaming Duties Act.

| — | Declare that Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 20 September 2011 in Case No C 35/2010 (ex N 302/2010) on measures which Denmark is planning to implement in the form of duties for online gaming in the Danish Gaming Duties Act is invalid in so far as it provides that the measure is approved as compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 20 September 2011 in Case No C 35/2010 (ex N 302/2010) on measures which Denmark is planning to implement in the form of duties for online gaming in the Danish Gaming Duties Act is invalid in so far as it provides that the measure is approved as compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: the contested decision is vitiated on grounds of failure to state reasons, as the arguments put forward in support of the plea that the aid in question — which consists in duties on online gaming being lower than duties on gaming through establishments based in Denmark — is compatible with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU are unrelated to the criteria laid down in that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: the contested decision is vitiated on grounds of failure to state reasons, as the arguments put forward in support of the plea that the aid in question — which consists in duties on online gaming being lower than duties on gaming through establishments based in Denmark — is compatible with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU are unrelated to the criteria laid down in that provision.

| 2. | Second plea in law: the contested decision should be set aside on essential procedural grounds, as the applicant was not given the opportunity to put forward its views on the application of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: the contested decision should be set aside on essential procedural grounds, as the applicant was not given the opportunity to put forward its views on the application of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law: incorrect application of the law in that the Commission’s decision is manifestly incorrect, as there is no power conferred in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU to declare the aid in question compatible with the Treaty and the Commission exceeded its discretion under that provision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: incorrect application of the law in that the Commission’s decision is manifestly incorrect, as there is no power conferred in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU to declare the aid in question compatible with the Treaty and the Commission exceeded its discretion under that provision.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: misuse of powers in that the contested decision is not actually based on the objectives which form the background for the provision in question. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: misuse of powers in that the contested decision is not actually based on the objectives which form the background for the provision in question.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law: the contested decision disregards the principle of proportionality, as it has not been demonstrated that the decision does not go beyond what is necessary. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law: the contested decision disregards the principle of proportionality, as it has not been demonstrated that the decision does not go beyond what is necessary.

---