# C_2015118EN.01003501.xml

| 13.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/35

---

Action brought on 4 February 2015 — Trajektna luka Split v Commission

(Case T-57/15)

(2015/C 118/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Trajektna luka Split d.d. (Split, Croatia) (represented by: M. Bauer, H.-J. Freund and S. Hankiewicz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission decision C(2013) 7285 final — Croatia — Alleged aid to Jadrolinija of 15 October 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission decision C(2013) 7285 final — Croatia — Alleged aid to Jadrolinija of 15 October 2014;

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and those of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and those of the applicant;

| — | refer the case back to the European Commission for further investigation and renewed decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the European Commission for further investigation and renewed decision; and

| — | take such other or further actions as justice may require. |
| --- | --- |

—

take such other or further actions as justice may require.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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 a manifest error of assessment and error of law by infringing Article 107 TFEU in finding that the disputed measure does not constitute State aid because the wrong test was applied to establish whether State resources were involved. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and error of law by infringing Article 107 TFEU in finding that the disputed measure does not constitute State aid because the wrong test was applied to establish whether State resources were involved.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and error of law by infringing Article 107 TFEU in finding that the disputed measure does not constitute State aid due to the lack of State resources being involved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and error of law by infringing Article 107 TFEU in finding that the disputed measure does not constitute State aid due to the lack of State resources being involved.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of law by infringing the concept of Article 107(1) TFEU in conjunction with Article 106(1) TFEU by failure to consider Article 106(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of law by infringing the concept of Article 107(1) TFEU in conjunction with Article 106(1) TFEU by failure to consider Article 106(1) TFEU.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of an essential procedural requirement by infringing Article 10(2) of Regulation No 659/1999 (1) in not sufficiently making use of investigation powers provided thereunder. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of an essential procedural requirement by infringing Article 10(2) of Regulation No 659/1999 (1) in not sufficiently making use of investigation powers provided thereunder.

1

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by failing to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by failing to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of an essential procedural requirement by failing to state sufficient reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU with regard to the lack of State resources and the concept of Article 106(1) in conjunction with Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of an essential procedural requirement by failing to state sufficient reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU with regard to the lack of State resources and the concept of Article 106(1) in conjunction with Article 107(1) TFEU.

---

(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 L 83, p. 1).

1

---