# C_2012184EN.01001501.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/15

---

Action brought on 5 April 2012 — IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission

(Case T-157/12)

2012/C 184/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: IFP Energies nouvelles (Rueil-Malmaison, France) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and A. Noël-Baron, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2011) 4483 final of 29 June 2011 relating to State aid No NN C 35/2008 (ex NN 11/2008) granted by France to the public body, the Institut Français du Pétrole (French Petroleum Institute; ‘IFP’), in its entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2011) 4483 final of 29 June 2011 relating to State aid No NN C 35/2008 (ex NN 11/2008) granted by France to the public body, the Institut Français du Pétrole (French Petroleum Institute; ‘IFP’), in its entirety.

| — | 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. | First plea in law, alleging error in law, in that the Commission exceeded the limits on its powers to interpret national law under the legislation governing State aid. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging error in law, in that the Commission exceeded the limits on its powers to interpret national law under the legislation governing State aid.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging failure by the Commission to establish the existence of a real economic advantage conferred on the applicant and its private-law subsidiaries. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure by the Commission to establish the existence of a real economic advantage conferred on the applicant and its private-law subsidiaries.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, in that the reference in the contested decision to the 2008 Commission Notice on guarantees (1) is not in itself sufficient to establish the existence of an economic advantage. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, in that the reference in the contested decision to the 2008 Commission Notice on guarantees (1) is not in itself sufficient to establish the existence of an economic advantage.

1

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment in the determination of the alleged advantage and the intensity of the presumed State aid. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment in the determination of the alleged advantage and the intensity of the presumed State aid.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, first, in making the creation of an industrial and commercial public body (EPIC) subject to an obligation of prior notification and, second, in imposing overly restrictive conditions. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, first, in making the creation of an industrial and commercial public body (EPIC) subject to an obligation of prior notification and, second, in imposing overly restrictive conditions.

---

(1)  Commission Notice on the application of Articles [107 TFEU] and [108 TFEU] of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (OJ 2008 C 155, p. 10).

1

---