# C_2020077EN.01005801.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/58

---

Action brought on 20 January 2020 — Datenlotsen Informationssysteme v Commission

(Case T-34/20)

(2020/C 77/79)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Lübbig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision of 20 September 2019 on the measure SA.34402 — 2015/C (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Germany for Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH (Commission document C(2019) 6836 final); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision of 20 September 2019 on the measure SA.34402 — 2015/C (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Germany for Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH (Commission document C(2019) 6836 final);

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in applying a test to determine whether the activities of Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH (‘HIS’) are economic in nature that is incompatible with the case-law, since the Commission failed to have regard to the content of the ‘inseparability’ criterion and the autonomous significance of the ‘connection’ criterion. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in applying a test to determine whether the activities of Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH (‘HIS’) are economic in nature that is incompatible with the case-law, since the Commission failed to have regard to the content of the ‘inseparability’ criterion and the autonomous significance of the ‘connection’ criterion.

| 2. | Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in characterising HIS’ activities for German public universities as non-economic. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in characterising HIS’ activities for German public universities as non-economic.

| 3. | Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in failing to differentiate between HIS’ various fields of activity. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in failing to differentiate between HIS’ various fields of activity.

| 4. | Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 1(b)(v) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) in classifying the direct funding as ‘existing aid’ on the basis that a market existed in 1976. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 1(b)(v) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) in classifying the direct funding as ‘existing aid’ on the basis that a market existed in 1976.

| 5. | Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU in failing to state sufficient reasons for the applicability of Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation 2015/1589 to situations not involving liberalisation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU in failing to state sufficient reasons for the applicability of Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation 2015/1589 to situations not involving liberalisation.

| 6. | Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation 2015/1589 in classifying the direct funding as ‘existing aid’ on the basis that the measures underwent significant change. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation 2015/1589 in classifying the direct funding as ‘existing aid’ on the basis that the measures underwent significant change.

| 7. | Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation 2015/1589 in classifying the direct funding as an ‘aid scheme’, since there was in fact a series of individual aid awards approved annually. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation 2015/1589 in classifying the direct funding as an ‘aid scheme’, since there was in fact a series of individual aid awards approved annually.

| 8. | Infringement of the right to have one’s case heard within a reasonable period of time as part of the right to ‘good administration’ under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Infringement of the right to have one’s case heard within a reasonable period of time as part of the right to ‘good administration’ under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

---