# C_2016068EN.01003001.xml

| 22.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/30

---

Action brought on 3 December 2015 — BikeWorld v Commission

(Case T-702/15)

(2016/C 068/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BikeWorld GmbH (St. Ingbert, Germany) (represented by: J. Jovy, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 1 October 2014 in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 1 October 2014 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | suspend the enforcement of the decision vis-à-vis the applicant until the present action has been decided on (Article 278 TFEU). |
| --- | --- |

—

suspend the enforcement of the decision vis-à-vis the applicant until the present action has been decided on (Article 278 TFEU).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2014) 3634 final of 1 October 2014 on German State aid granted to the Nürburgring (SA.31550 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN)).

In support of the action, the applicant relies, in essence, on the following:

| 1. | The applicant is no longer identical to the party to the proceedings in which the decision was adopted. No proceedings could therefore be brought against it. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The applicant is no longer identical to the party to the proceedings in which the decision was adopted. No proceedings could therefore be brought against it.

| 2. | The applicant was not a party to the proceedings that led to the adoption of the contested decision. Its right to a fair hearing was therefore not respected. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant was not a party to the proceedings that led to the adoption of the contested decision. Its right to a fair hearing was therefore not respected.

| 3. | The applicant’s current shareholders are not remotely connected to the original shareholders/owners at the time that the loans were granted. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The applicant’s current shareholders are not remotely connected to the original shareholders/owners at the time that the loans were granted.

| 4. | The objective ‘to prevent particular competitive advantages’ sought by the recovery cannot be attained by the decision, for the applicant has not been in competition with anyone and that has been the case since the last loan was granted. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The objective ‘to prevent particular competitive advantages’ sought by the recovery cannot be attained by the decision, for the applicant has not been in competition with anyone and that has been the case since the last loan was granted.

| 5. | The applicant has already agreed to its liquidation and winding-up, should that prove necessary, in order to avoid imminent insolvency, which would not be avoidable, if it had to make any payment on the basis of the recovery of State aid. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The applicant has already agreed to its liquidation and winding-up, should that prove necessary, in order to avoid imminent insolvency, which would not be avoidable, if it had to make any payment on the basis of the recovery of State aid.

---