# C_2016027EN.01006401.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/64

---

Action brought on 26 October 2015 — British Aggregates v Commission

(Case T-610/15)

(2016/C 027/82)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: British Aggregates Association (Lanark, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Van den Hende, lawyer, and A. White, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | order the annulment pursuant to Article 263 TFEU of the Commission’s decision of 27 March 2015 C(2015) 2141 final in Case SA.34775 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) — Aggregates Levy; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the annulment pursuant to Article 263 TFEU of the Commission’s decision of 27 March 2015 C(2015) 2141 final in Case SA.34775 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) — Aggregates Levy; and

| — | order that the Commission pay the applicant's costs in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the Commission pay the applicant's costs in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made errors of assessment in deciding that eight exemptions from the aggregates levy (‘AGL’) under the Finance Act 2001 do not result in selectivity and thereby do not constitute State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU and in determining the normal taxation principle and objective of the AGL for the purposes of applying the selectivity criterion. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made errors of assessment in deciding that eight exemptions from the aggregates levy (‘AGL’) under the Finance Act 2001 do not result in selectivity and thereby do not constitute State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU and in determining the normal taxation principle and objective of the AGL for the purposes of applying the selectivity criterion.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to make a genuinely diligent and impartial examination as to whether the eight exemptions in question result in selectivity and thereby constitute State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to make a genuinely diligent and impartial examination as to whether the eight exemptions in question result in selectivity and thereby constitute State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to state reasons for the contested decision as required by Article 296 TFEU because the application made by the Commission of the normal taxation principle and objective of the AGL in explaining why the eight exemptions in question do not result in selectivity is contradictory on the face of the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to state reasons for the contested decision as required by Article 296 TFEU because the application made by the Commission of the normal taxation principle and objective of the AGL in explaining why the eight exemptions in question do not result in selectivity is contradictory on the face of the contested decision.

---