# C_2016059EN.01002101.xml

| 15.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/21

---

Action brought on 10 November 2015 — Scandlines Danmark et Scandlines Deutschland v Commission

(Case T-630/15)

(2016/C 059/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Scandlines Danmark ApS (København, Denmark), Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 23 July 2015 on State aid SA.39078 (2014/N) (Denmark) for the financing of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 23 July 2015 on State aid SA.39078 (2014/N) (Denmark) for the financing of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in finding that the funding granted to Femern A/S for the Danish rail hinterland connections does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in finding that the funding granted to Femern A/S for the Danish rail hinterland connections does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in finding that the aid measures granted to Femern A/S for the Fixed Link are compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. The Commission erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project was of common European interest and in finding that the aid was necessary and proportionate. The Commission also erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment regarding the prevention of undue distortions of competition and balancing test and regarding the mobilisation of the State guarantees. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in finding that the aid measures granted to Femern A/S for the Fixed Link are compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. The Commission erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project was of common European interest and in finding that the aid was necessary and proportionate. The Commission also erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment regarding the prevention of undue distortions of competition and balancing test and regarding the mobilisation of the State guarantees.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure. The applicants allege that there are evidence of serious difficulties relating to the length and the circumstances of the preliminary investigation procedure. In addition, they allege an insufficient and incomplete analysis regarding the funding granted to Femern A/S for the Danish rail hinterland connections, regarding the common European interest of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project, regarding the necessity and proportionality of the aid and finally regarding the prevention of undue distortions of competition and balancing test. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure. The applicants allege that there are evidence of serious difficulties relating to the length and the circumstances of the preliminary investigation procedure. In addition, they allege an insufficient and incomplete analysis regarding the funding granted to Femern A/S for the Danish rail hinterland connections, regarding the common European interest of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project, regarding the necessity and proportionality of the aid and finally regarding the prevention of undue distortions of competition and balancing test.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons. The Commission failed to provide reasons in relation to the Danish rail hinterland connections, in relation to the common European interest of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project, in relation to the necessity and proportionality of the aid and finally in relation to the undue distortions of competition and balancing test. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons. The Commission failed to provide reasons in relation to the Danish rail hinterland connections, in relation to the common European interest of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project, in relation to the necessity and proportionality of the aid and finally in relation to the undue distortions of competition and balancing test.

---