# C_2015398EN.01006201.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/62 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-554/15)

(2015/C 398/76)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul in part Commission Decision C(2015) 4805 of 15 July 2015 on the health contribution of tobacco industry businesses in Hungary insofar as that decision orders the suspension of the application of the progressive tax rate and the tax reduction in the case of investment provided for by Law XCIV of 2014 on the health contribution of tobacco industry businesses (a dohányipari vállalkozások 2015. évi egészségügyi hozzájárulásáról szóló 2014. évi XCIV. törvény) adopted by the Hungarian Parliament, and |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | Misuse of discretion, manifest error of assessment and breach of the principle of proportionality
—
First, the applicant argues that, in ordering the suspension, the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and thereby overstepped the bounds of its discretion and breached the principle of proportionality. | — | First, the applicant argues that, in ordering the suspension, the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and thereby overstepped the bounds of its discretion and breached the principle of proportionality. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | First, the applicant argues that, in ordering the suspension, the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and thereby overstepped the bounds of its discretion and breached the principle of proportionality. | | |

| 2. | Breach of the prohibition on discrimination and of the requirement of equal treatment
—
Secondly, the applicant argues that the Commission’s conduct as regards the suspension can be said to be inconsistent and as a result gives rise to a breach of the prohibition on discrimination and the requirement of equal treatment. | — | Secondly, the applicant argues that the Commission’s conduct as regards the suspension can be said to be inconsistent and as a result gives rise to a breach of the prohibition on discrimination and the requirement of equal treatment. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | Secondly, the applicant argues that the Commission’s conduct as regards the suspension can be said to be inconsistent and as a result gives rise to a breach of the prohibition on discrimination and the requirement of equal treatment. | | |

| 3. | Breach of the obligation to state reasons and of the principle of sound administration and rights of the defence
—
Thirdly, the applicant takes the view, inter alia, that, in ordering the suspension, the Commission failed to observe the requirement to state reasons. | — | Thirdly, the applicant takes the view, inter alia, that, in ordering the suspension, the Commission failed to observe the requirement to state reasons. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | Thirdly, the applicant takes the view, inter alia, that, in ordering the suspension, the Commission failed to observe the requirement to state reasons. | | |

| 4. | [Breach of] the requirement of sincere cooperation and the right to effective legal remedies
—
The applicant takes the view that the suspension ordered by the Commission results in the breach of guaranteed basic rights such as the requirement of sincere cooperation and the right to an effective legal remedy. | — | The applicant takes the view that the suspension ordered by the Commission results in the breach of guaranteed basic rights such as the requirement of sincere cooperation and the right to an effective legal remedy. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant takes the view that the suspension ordered by the Commission results in the breach of guaranteed basic rights such as the requirement of sincere cooperation and the right to an effective legal remedy. | | |

| 5. | The provisions of the decision are contradictory and not sufficiently specific
—
The applicant states, that in its view, the Commission, in taking the decision, disregarded the fact that in the case of taxes to be determined on the basis of tax returns the Hungarian authorities are unable to prevent the grant of the aid, and that, further, the Commission’s decision was contradictory as regards the subject-matter of the suspension. Consequently, it did not define clear rules of conduct, whilst it can none the less require the Hungarian authorities to implement the decision. | — | The applicant states, that in its view, the Commission, in taking the decision, disregarded the fact that in the case of taxes to be determined on the basis of tax returns the Hungarian authorities are unable to prevent the grant of the aid, and that, further, the Commission’s decision was contradictory as regards the subject-matter of the suspension. Consequently, it did not define clear rules of conduct, whilst it can none the less require the Hungarian authorities to implement the decision. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | The applicant states, that in its view, the Commission, in taking the decision, disregarded the fact that in the case of taxes to be determined on the basis of tax returns the Hungarian authorities are unable to prevent the grant of the aid, and that, further, the Commission’s decision was contradictory as regards the subject-matter of the suspension. Consequently, it did not define clear rules of conduct, whilst it can none the less require the Hungarian authorities to implement the decision. | | |

---