# C_2020390EN.01003801.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/38

---

Action brought on 14 August 2020 — ITD and Danske Fragtmænd v Commission

(Case T-525/20)

(2020/C 390/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ITD, Brancheorganisation for den danske vejgodstransport (Padborg, Denmark) and Danske Fragtmænd A/S (Åbyhøj, Denmark) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul European Commission Decision C(2020) 3006 final of 12 May 2020 in State aid case SA. 52489 (2018/FC) — Denmark, and in State aid case SA. 52658 (2018/FC) — Sweden (Alleged State aid to PostNord Logistics); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission Decision C(2020) 3006 final of 12 May 2020 in State aid case SA. 52489 (2018/FC) — Denmark, and in State aid case SA. 52658 (2018/FC) — Sweden (Alleged State aid to PostNord Logistics);

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

—

order the Commission to pay the applicants costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure.

| — | The applicants refer to evidence of serious difficulties relating to the length and the circumstances of the preliminary investigation procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicants refer to evidence of serious difficulties relating to the length and the circumstances of the preliminary investigation procedure;

| — | The applicants further refer to an insufficient and incomplete analysis by the defendant regarding the imputability of the capital injection and in particular to:






  — | insufficient and incomplete analysis as the Commission has not relied on accurate, reliable and consistent data; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

The applicants further refer to an insufficient and incomplete analysis by the defendant regarding the imputability of the capital injection and in particular to:

—

insufficient and incomplete analysis as the Commission has not relied on accurate, reliable and consistent data;

| — | serious difficulties showed by the fact that the Commission erred when determining that the decision to grant the capital injection was adopted by PostNord Group AB and not by PostNord AB; |
| --- | --- |

—

serious difficulties showed by the fact that the Commission erred when determining that the decision to grant the capital injection was adopted by PostNord Group AB and not by PostNord AB;

| — | serious difficulties showed by the fact that the Commission erred when determining that the decision of PostNord AB’s Board of Directors to grant the capital injection is not imputable to the Danish and Swedish States. |
| --- | --- |

—

serious difficulties showed by the fact that the Commission erred when determining that the decision of PostNord AB’s Board of Directors to grant the capital injection is not imputable to the Danish and Swedish States.

| — | The applicants finally refer to insufficient and incomplete analysis regarding the cross-subsidisation of PostNord Logistics’s costs by Post Danmark A/S. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicants finally refer to insufficient and incomplete analysis regarding the cross-subsidisation of PostNord Logistics’s costs by Post Danmark A/S.

---