# C_2011282EN.01004501.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/45

---

Action brought on 3 August 2011 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-425/11)

2011/C 282/83

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Milonopoulos and K. Boskovits)

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; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | 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

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 3504 final of 24 May 2011 relating to State aid to certain Greek casinos, No C 16/2010 (ex NN 22/2010, ex CP 318/2009).

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward the following grounds for annulment.

| 1. | First ground
  : Incorrect interpretation of Article 107(1) TFEU relating to the concept of State aid.
  More specifically, the applicant submits that the defendant mistakenly supposes that a lower charge for an admission ticket at certain casinos conferred an advantage upon them through the reduction of State income. Also, the supposed recipients of the aid are not in a comparable legal and factual position vis-à-vis the other casinos that operate in Greece, intra-Community trade is not affected and competition within the internal market is not distorted. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground
  : Incorrect interpretation of Article 107(1) TFEU relating to the concept of State aid.

First ground

More specifically, the applicant submits that the defendant mistakenly supposes that a lower charge for an admission ticket at certain casinos conferred an advantage upon them through the reduction of State income. Also, the supposed recipients of the aid are not in a comparable legal and factual position vis-à-vis the other casinos that operate in Greece, intra-Community trade is not affected and competition within the internal market is not distorted.

| 2. | Second ground
  : Inappropriate, deficient and contradictory reasoning as regards establishing State aid.
  The applicant observes in particular that the reasoning is contradictory since it accepts that a lower charge for a ticket can increase custom at the casinos in question while at the same time it contests the increase in State income by reason of the increase in custom. Also, the reasoning is deficient in relation to proof of the advantage and to establishing the effect on intra-Community trade and it is clearly erroneous as regards proof of the measure’s selective nature. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground
  : Inappropriate, deficient and contradictory reasoning as regards establishing State aid.

Second ground

The applicant observes in particular that the reasoning is contradictory since it accepts that a lower charge for a ticket can increase custom at the casinos in question while at the same time it contests the increase in State income by reason of the increase in custom. Also, the reasoning is deficient in relation to proof of the advantage and to establishing the effect on intra-Community trade and it is clearly erroneous as regards proof of the measure’s selective nature.

| 3. | Third ground
  : Recovery of the aid infringes Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/99. (1)

  More specifically, the applicant submits that the aid is not sought from the actual beneficiaries, that is to say, the customers of the casinos that charge a lower ticket price. Also, recovery is contrary to the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, by reason of the previous case-law of the Greek Council of State and the defendant’s conduct, and to the general principle of proportionality since it imposes disproportionate and unjustified burdens on the supposed recipients of the aid and strengthens the competitive position of the casinos that charge the ticket price of EUR 12. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground
  : Recovery of the aid infringes Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/99. (1)

Third ground

1

More specifically, the applicant submits that the aid is not sought from the actual beneficiaries, that is to say, the customers of the casinos that charge a lower ticket price. Also, recovery is contrary to the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, by reason of the previous case-law of the Greek Council of State and the defendant’s conduct, and to the general principle of proportionality since it imposes disproportionate and unjustified burdens on the supposed recipients of the aid and strengthens the competitive position of the casinos that charge the ticket price of EUR 12.

| 4. | Fourth ground
  : The defendant calculated the sums to be recovered incorrectly.
  The applicant maintains that the defendant is unable to calculate precisely the supposed advantage of the recipients of the aid and does not take into account the effect which the charging of a lower ticket price had or could have had on demand. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth ground
  : The defendant calculated the sums to be recovered incorrectly.

Fourth ground

The applicant maintains that the defendant is unable to calculate precisely the supposed advantage of the recipients of the aid and does not take into account the effect which the charging of a lower ticket price had or could have had on demand.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

1

---