# C_2020348EN.01002201.xml

| 19.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/22

---

Action brought on 21 July 2020 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-469/20)

(2020/C 348/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, J. Langer and M. de Ree, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Decision C(2020) final 2998 of the European Commission of 12 May 2020 on State aid SA.54537 (2020/NN) — Netherlands; Prohibition of coal for the production of electricity in the Netherlands; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision C(2020) final 2998 of the European Commission of 12 May 2020 on State aid SA.54537 (2020/NN) — Netherlands; Prohibition of coal for the production of electricity in the Netherlands;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

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 misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the Commission assumes that Vattenfall has received an advantage. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the Commission assumes that Vattenfall has received an advantage.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the Commission incorrectly allocates the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the Commission incorrectly allocates the burden of proof.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU in so far as the Commission fails to justify why there are doubts as to a right to compensation and to determine the level of overcompensation which Vattenfall received, and in so far as the decision is inherently contradictory. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU in so far as the Commission fails to justify why there are doubts as to a right to compensation and to determine the level of overcompensation which Vattenfall received, and in so far as the decision is inherently contradictory.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU in so far as the Commission deemed the compensation to Vattenfall compatible with the internal market without having had the competence to do so. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU in so far as the Commission deemed the compensation to Vattenfall compatible with the internal market without having had the competence to do so.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty in so far as the Commission fails to determine whether the compensation to Vattenfall ought to be regarded as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty in so far as the Commission fails to determine whether the compensation to Vattenfall ought to be regarded as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

---