# C_2020297EN.01004001.xml

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/40

---

Action brought on 19 June 2020 — Flašker v Commission

(Case T-392/20)

(2020/C 297/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Petra Flašker (Grosuplje, Slovenia) (represented by: K. Zdolšek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the European Commission dated 24 March 2020 in Case SA.43546 — Alleged State aid to Lekarna Ljubljana, declaring that the measures complained of by the applicant do not constitute State aid without opening a formal investigation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Commission dated 24 March 2020 in Case SA.43546 — Alleged State aid to Lekarna Ljubljana, declaring that the measures complained of by the applicant do not constitute State aid without opening a formal investigation;

| — | order the European Commission to pay its own costs and also those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay its own costs and also those incurred by the applicant.

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 contested decision contains material contradictions in reasoning that amount to an infringement of the duty to state reasons prescribed by Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision contains material contradictions in reasoning that amount to an infringement of the duty to state reasons prescribed by Article 296 TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging errors in fact and in law in the Commission’s conclusion that the measures constitute existing aid.






  — | The applicant argues in that respect that the Commission’s decision is based on inaccurate and incomplete facts and on the incorrect legal categorisation of those facts that amount to the infringement of Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging errors in fact and in law in the Commission’s conclusion that the measures constitute existing aid.

—

The applicant argues in that respect that the Commission’s decision is based on inaccurate and incomplete facts and on the incorrect legal categorisation of those facts that amount to the infringement of Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the errors in fact and law described in the first two pleas reveal enough difficulties in the Commission’s assessment of this case and the insufficient examination of the relevant facts prior to adopting the decision to warrant a formal investigation procedure. These difficulties are compounded by other, procedural, difficulties presented in this third plea. In the presence of those difficulties, the Commission was required to initiate the formal investigation procedure and has, by refusing to do so, infringed the applicant’s procedural rights deriving from Article 108(2) of TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the errors in fact and law described in the first two pleas reveal enough difficulties in the Commission’s assessment of this case and the insufficient examination of the relevant facts prior to adopting the decision to warrant a formal investigation procedure. These difficulties are compounded by other, procedural, difficulties presented in this third plea. In the presence of those difficulties, the Commission was required to initiate the formal investigation procedure and has, by refusing to do so, infringed the applicant’s procedural rights deriving from Article 108(2) of TFEU.

---