# C_2019025EN.01005101.xml

| 21.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/51

---

Action brought on 14 November 2018 — Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy v Commission

(Case T-674/18)

(2019/C 25/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein and R. Sangi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s letter of 4 July 2018 in the State aid proceedings SA.51169 (2018/PN) — 16 Atomgesetz-Änderungsgesetz (Law on the Amendment to the Nuclear Energy Law; ‘16. AtG-Novelle’); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s letter of 4 July 2018 in the State aid proceedings SA.51169 (2018/PN) — 16 Atomgesetz-Änderungsgesetz (Law on the Amendment to the Nuclear Energy Law; ‘16. AtG-Novelle’);

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on the following grounds:

| 1. | Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU (in conjunction with Article 108(3) TFEU)
  The applicant claims that the contested letter infringes Article 107(1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 108(3) TFEU, because — on the assumption that it is intended to be binding —, it exempts a national indemnification law from the obligation to notify State aid, despite the fact that one of the applicant’s competitors, which, according to a judgment of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court, Germany), had no right to indemnification, was selected to be supported by State funds on the basis of that legislation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU (in conjunction with Article 108(3) TFEU)

The applicant claims that the contested letter infringes Article 107(1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 108(3) TFEU, because — on the assumption that it is intended to be binding —, it exempts a national indemnification law from the obligation to notify State aid, despite the fact that one of the applicant’s competitors, which, according to a judgment of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court, Germany), had no right to indemnification, was selected to be supported by State funds on the basis of that legislation.

| 2. | Infringement of Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1)

  The applicant claims that, where a Member State forms the view that a measure taken by it does not constitute aid, Regulation 2015/1589 envisages a formal decision in accordance with Article 288 TFEU, provided that the Commission comes to the conclusion, after a preliminary review, that the measure granted does not constitute aid. The letter at issue infringes those guidelines. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Infringement of Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1)

The applicant claims that, where a Member State forms the view that a measure taken by it does not constitute aid, Regulation 2015/1589 envisages a formal decision in accordance with Article 288 TFEU, provided that the Commission comes to the conclusion, after a preliminary review, that the measure granted does not constitute aid. The letter at issue infringes those guidelines.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

---