# C_2015138EN.01005601.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/56 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Scandlines Øresund e.a. v Commission

(Case T-68/15)

(2015/C 138/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Scandlines Øresund I/S (Helsingør, Denmark), HH Ferries Helsingor ApS (Helsingør, Denmark), HH-Ferries Helsingborg AB (Helsingborg, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, R. Azelius and P. Remnelid, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; and |
| - | --------------------------------- |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application is brought pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for annulment of the decision by the European Commission of 15 October 2014 under Article 107(3)(b) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (in Cases SA.36558 and SA.38371 — Denmark, and SA.36662 — Sweden, Aid granted to Øresundsbro Konsortiet).

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging errors of law and errors of assessment.
—
By the first part of the first plea in law, the applicants submit that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment when concluding that the financing of the Hinterland Facilities did not involve State aid since the measures concerned were neither liable to distort competition nor to affect trade between Member States. —
By the second part, the applicants submit that the Commission erred in law with regard to the unconditional character of the State guarantees and the legally enforceable right of the Consortium to obtain State guaranteed funding, as well as regarding the Commission’s assessment of the number of State guarantees. —
By the third and fourth parts, the applicants submit that the Commission erred in law by concluding that the Swedish guarantee measures constitute an aid scheme and existing aid. —
By the fifth part, the applicants submit that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment when concluding that the State guarantees are limited to the financing of the Fixed Link. —
By the sixth part of the first plea in law, the applicants allege infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, in that the Commission did not have sufficient grounds to find the aid measures in question compatible with the internal market. —
Under the sixth part, the Applicants also submit that the Commission erred in law by not assessing the cumulative effect of all the different aid measures directly and indirectly granted to the Consortium. —
By the seventh part of the first plea in law, the applicants allege incorrect application of the principle of legitimate expectations. | — | By the first part of the first plea in law, the applicants submit that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment when concluding that the financing of the Hinterland Facilities did not involve State aid since the measures concerned were neither liable to distort competition nor to affect trade between Member States. | — | By the second part, the applicants submit that the Commission erred in law with regard to the unconditional character of the State guarantees and the legally enforceable right of the Consortium to obtain State guaranteed funding, as well as regarding the Commission’s assessment of the number of State guarantees. | — | By the third and fourth parts, the applicants submit that the Commission erred in law by concluding that the Swedish guarantee measures constitute an aid scheme and existing aid. | — | By the fifth part, the applicants submit that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment when concluding that the State guarantees are limited to the financing of the Fixed Link. | — | By the sixth part of the first plea in law, the applicants allege infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, in that the Commission did not have sufficient grounds to find the aid measures in question compatible with the internal market. | — | Under the sixth part, the Applicants also submit that the Commission erred in law by not assessing the cumulative effect of all the different aid measures directly and indirectly granted to the Consortium. | — | By the seventh part of the first plea in law, the applicants allege incorrect application of the principle of legitimate expectations. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | By the first part of the first plea in law, the applicants submit that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment when concluding that the financing of the Hinterland Facilities did not involve State aid since the measures concerned were neither liable to distort competition nor to affect trade between Member States. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | By the second part, the applicants submit that the Commission erred in law with regard to the unconditional character of the State guarantees and the legally enforceable right of the Consortium to obtain State guaranteed funding, as well as regarding the Commission’s assessment of the number of State guarantees. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | By the third and fourth parts, the applicants submit that the Commission erred in law by concluding that the Swedish guarantee measures constitute an aid scheme and existing aid. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | By the fifth part, the applicants submit that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment when concluding that the State guarantees are limited to the financing of the Fixed Link. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | By the sixth part of the first plea in law, the applicants allege infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, in that the Commission did not have sufficient grounds to find the aid measures in question compatible with the internal market. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | Under the sixth part, the Applicants also submit that the Commission erred in law by not assessing the cumulative effect of all the different aid measures directly and indirectly granted to the Consortium. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | By the seventh part of the first plea in law, the applicants allege incorrect application of the principle of legitimate expectations. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
—
The second plea in law is divided into nineteen parts, through which the applicants submit that the examination carried out by the Commission was insufficient and incomplete, and that the Commission on several points failed to follow its own guidelines and notices. These failures establish the existence of a body of consistent evidence that shows that the Commission was not able, at the date of the adoption of the contested decision, to resolve all the serious difficulties identified in the case at hand. Consequently, the Commission erroneously refused to safeguard the procedural rights that the applicants derive from Article 108(2) TFEU. | — | The second plea in law is divided into nineteen parts, through which the applicants submit that the examination carried out by the Commission was insufficient and incomplete, and that the Commission on several points failed to follow its own guidelines and notices. These failures establish the existence of a body of consistent evidence that shows that the Commission was not able, at the date of the adoption of the contested decision, to resolve all the serious difficulties identified in the case at hand. Consequently, the Commission erroneously refused to safeguard the procedural rights that the applicants derive from Article 108(2) TFEU. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The second plea in law is divided into nineteen parts, through which the applicants submit that the examination carried out by the Commission was insufficient and incomplete, and that the Commission on several points failed to follow its own guidelines and notices. These failures establish the existence of a body of consistent evidence that shows that the Commission was not able, at the date of the adoption of the contested decision, to resolve all the serious difficulties identified in the case at hand. Consequently, the Commission erroneously refused to safeguard the procedural rights that the applicants derive from Article 108(2) TFEU. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons.
—
By their third and final plea in law, the applicants submit that the contested decision is based on inadequate reasoning. The applicants submit that the Commission failed to ascertain that the statements and reasons in the contested decision were precise enough for the applicants to defend their rights and for the Court to exercise its power of review. The alleged flaws in reasoning concern the Commission’s assessment of the Hinterland Facilities, the State guarantees, the Danish tax advantages, the Danish State loans and, lastly, the fact that the Commission’s conclusions concerning compatibility with the internal market and legitimate expectations are based on a circular reasoning. | — | By their third and final plea in law, the applicants submit that the contested decision is based on inadequate reasoning. The applicants submit that the Commission failed to ascertain that the statements and reasons in the contested decision were precise enough for the applicants to defend their rights and for the Court to exercise its power of review. The alleged flaws in reasoning concern the Commission’s assessment of the Hinterland Facilities, the State guarantees, the Danish tax advantages, the Danish State loans and, lastly, the fact that the Commission’s conclusions concerning compatibility with the internal market and legitimate expectations are based on a circular reasoning. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | By their third and final plea in law, the applicants submit that the contested decision is based on inadequate reasoning. The applicants submit that the Commission failed to ascertain that the statements and reasons in the contested decision were precise enough for the applicants to defend their rights and for the Court to exercise its power of review. The alleged flaws in reasoning concern the Commission’s assessment of the Hinterland Facilities, the State guarantees, the Danish tax advantages, the Danish State loans and, lastly, the fact that the Commission’s conclusions concerning compatibility with the internal market and legitimate expectations are based on a circular reasoning. | | |

---