# C_2018399EN.01004001.xml

| 5.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/40

---

Action brought on 30 August 2018 — Luxembourg v Commission

(Case T-516/18)

(2018/C 399/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: D. Holderer, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present application admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present application admissible and well founded;

| — | primarily, annul the Commission decision of 20 June 2018 concerning the alleged State aid SA.44888 which, it is claimed, was implemented by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in favour of Engie; |
| --- | --- |

—

primarily, annul the Commission decision of 20 June 2018 concerning the alleged State aid SA.44888 which, it is claimed, was implemented by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in favour of Engie;

| — | in the alternative, annul the Commission decision of 20 June 2018 concerning the alleged State aid SA.44888 which, it is claimed, was implemented by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in favour of Engie in so far as that decision orders the recovery of the aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the Commission decision of 20 June 2018 concerning the alleged State aid SA.44888 which, it is claimed, was implemented by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in favour of Engie in so far as that decision orders the recovery of the aid;

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

—

order the 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 infringement of Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in that the Commission has not demonstrated that the measures in question are selective. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in that the Commission has not demonstrated that the measures in question are selective.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, in that the Commission has not demonstrated the existence of any advantage in favour of Engie. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, in that the Commission has not demonstrated the existence of any advantage in favour of Engie.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 4 and 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in so far as the Commission is in fact implementing disguised tax harmonisation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 4 and 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in so far as the Commission is in fact implementing disguised tax harmonisation.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9) and of the rights of the defence. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9) and of the rights of the defence.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, raised in the alternative and alleging infringement of Article 16 of the abovementioned Regulation 2015/1589, in so far as the Commission has ordered recovery of the aid in breach of fundamental principles of EU law. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, raised in the alternative and alleging infringement of Article 16 of the abovementioned Regulation 2015/1589, in so far as the Commission has ordered recovery of the aid in breach of fundamental principles of EU law.

---