# C_2012287EN.01003201.xml

| 22.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/32

---

Action brought on 19 July 2012 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-319/12)

2012/C 287/60

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul European Commission Decision C(2012) of 8 May 2012 concerning State Aid SA 22668 (C 8/2008 — ex NN 4/2008), granted by Spain to ‘Ciudad de la Luz SA’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul European Commission Decision C(2012) of 8 May 2012 concerning State Aid SA 22668 (C 8/2008 — ex NN 4/2008), granted by Spain to ‘Ciudad de la Luz SA’;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law:

| 1. | Incorrect application of the private investor test, since the Commission went beyond the bounds of its margin of assessment when carrying out its analysis. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Incorrect application of the private investor test, since the Commission went beyond the bounds of its margin of assessment when carrying out its analysis.

| 2. | Error in the assessment of the State aid on account of a failure to take into account actions in the tertiary part of the complex. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Error in the assessment of the State aid on account of a failure to take into account actions in the tertiary part of the complex.

| 3. | Failure of the contested decision to state reasons in so far as the Commission requires recovery of the aid granted to film producers and in so far as its analysis makes no mention of that alleged aid. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Failure of the contested decision to state reasons in so far as the Commission requires recovery of the aid granted to film producers and in so far as its analysis makes no mention of that alleged aid.

| 4. | In the alternative, error in the analysis of the compatibility of the investment with the Guidelines on National Regional aid, since the Commission failed to consider whether the remaining aid complied with the private investor principle. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the alternative, error in the analysis of the compatibility of the investment with the Guidelines on National Regional aid, since the Commission failed to consider whether the remaining aid complied with the private investor principle.

| 5. | In the alternative, failure to state reasons and error in the analysis of the compatibility of the aid, in the light of the rules applicable to aid in the audiovisual sector, since the Commission failed to consider why the alleged aid was not intended for cultural purposes. |
| --- | --- |

5.

In the alternative, failure to state reasons and error in the analysis of the compatibility of the aid, in the light of the rules applicable to aid in the audiovisual sector, since the Commission failed to consider why the alleged aid was not intended for cultural purposes.

---