# C_2018381EN.01002801.xml

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/28

---

Action brought on 15 August 2018 — Danske Slagtermestre v European Commission

(Case T-486/18)

(2018/C 381/33)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Danske Slagtermestre (Odense, Denmark) (represented by: H. Sønderby Christensen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission of 19 April 2018 in State aid case SA.37433(2017/FC), notified as document C(2018) 2259; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 19 April 2018 in State aid case SA.37433(2017/FC), notified as document C(2018) 2259;

| — | 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 seven pleas in law:

| 1. | The first plea in law is that the Commission infringed the principle of audi alteram partem.
  The applicant claims that the Commission infringed the principle of audi alteram partem, see Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that it failed to give to Danske Slagtermestre the opportunity to be heard in relation to the submissions of the opposing party, on the basis of which the Commission made its decision in this case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first plea in law is that the Commission infringed the principle of audi alteram partem.

The applicant claims that the Commission infringed the principle of audi alteram partem, see Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that it failed to give to Danske Slagtermestre the opportunity to be heard in relation to the submissions of the opposing party, on the basis of which the Commission made its decision in this case.

| 2. | The second plea in law is that the Commission was not impartial in making its decision.
  The applicant claims that the Commission infringed Danske Slagtermestre’s right to impartial treatment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second plea in law is that the Commission was not impartial in making its decision.

The applicant claims that the Commission infringed Danske Slagtermestre’s right to impartial treatment.

| 3. | The third plea in law is that the aid grants an advantage. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third plea in law is that the aid grants an advantage.

| 4. | The fourth plea in law is that the aid is selective. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The fourth plea in law is that the aid is selective.

| 5. | The fifth plea in law is that the aid is granted by the State or through State resources. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The fifth plea in law is that the aid is granted by the State or through State resources.

| 6. | The sixth plea in law is that the aid distorts competition. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The sixth plea in law is that the aid distorts competition.

| 7. | The seventh plea in law is that the aid affects trade between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The seventh plea in law is that the aid affects trade between Member States.

The applicant claims, in support of the third to seventh pleas in law, inter alia, that the Commission erred in law in finding that the measure did not confer an advantage on certain undertakings.

| — | First, it is claimed that the measure confers on large slaughter houses an obvious advantage because the measure ensures that smaller slaughter houses pay more than twice as much in waste water charges per animal for slaughter as compared with large slaughter houses, which therefore can pay a higher price to suppliers. |
| --- | --- |

—

First, it is claimed that the measure confers on large slaughter houses an obvious advantage because the measure ensures that smaller slaughter houses pay more than twice as much in waste water charges per animal for slaughter as compared with large slaughter houses, which therefore can pay a higher price to suppliers.

| — | Second, it is claimed that there is no objective reason for conferring a reduction in waste water charges only on large slaughter houses, when the ‘true cost’ payment is the same for small, medium-sized and large slaughter houses, and the measure can only be ‘cost true’, if the reduction is also given to smaller slaughter houses. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second, it is claimed that there is no objective reason for conferring a reduction in waste water charges only on large slaughter houses, when the ‘true cost’ payment is the same for small, medium-sized and large slaughter houses, and the measure can only be ‘cost true’, if the reduction is also given to smaller slaughter houses.

| — | Third, it is claimed that the Commission’s market economy operator (MEO) test is inapplicable for the purposes of assessing whether the measure confers an advantage, because no Danish undertaking has any right to be disconnected from a central treatment plant, and because there is no actual or potential market for waste water drainage in Denmark. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third, it is claimed that the Commission’s market economy operator (MEO) test is inapplicable for the purposes of assessing whether the measure confers an advantage, because no Danish undertaking has any right to be disconnected from a central treatment plant, and because there is no actual or potential market for waste water drainage in Denmark.

| — | Fourth, it is claimed that even if the MEO test is applicable, the Commission has not correctly applied that test. The MEO test can only be based on data established in relation to the activity of the specific user. It is incompatible with the MEO test to use average figures obtained from other municipalities in the calculation and, further, to ignore the significant capital expenditure of treatment plants on the connection of large beneficiary undertakings to the municipal plant in the form of expenditure on waste water infrastructure and the expansion of treatment plants. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth, it is claimed that even if the MEO test is applicable, the Commission has not correctly applied that test. The MEO test can only be based on data established in relation to the activity of the specific user. It is incompatible with the MEO test to use average figures obtained from other municipalities in the calculation and, further, to ignore the significant capital expenditure of treatment plants on the connection of large beneficiary undertakings to the municipal plant in the form of expenditure on waste water infrastructure and the expansion of treatment plants.

---