# C_2019103EN.01004701.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/47

---

Action brought on 30 December 2018 — Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi v European Commission

(Case T-763/18)

(2019/C 103/62)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi (Lazarus Kft.) (Békés, Hungary) (represented by: L. Szabó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Principally, declare the nullity of the Decision adopted by the Commission on 20 July 2011 in case SA. 29432 — CP 290/2009 — Hungary — ‘Aid for the employment of disabled workers alleged to be unlawful due to the discriminatory nature of the legislation’ (‘the decision primarily contested’); |
| --- | --- |

—

Principally, declare the nullity of the Decision adopted by the Commission on 20 July 2011 in case SA. 29432 — CP 290/2009 — Hungary — ‘Aid for the employment of disabled workers alleged to be unlawful due to the discriminatory nature of the legislation’ (‘the decision primarily contested’);

| — | In the alternative, declare the nullity of the Decision adopted by the Commission on 25 January 2017 in case SA. 45498 (FC/2016) — ‘Complaint made by OPS Újpest-lift Kft. concerning the State aid granted between 2006 and 2012 to companies employing disabled workers’ (‘the decision contested in the alternative’); |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, declare the nullity of the Decision adopted by the Commission on 25 January 2017 in case SA. 45498 (FC/2016) — ‘Complaint made by OPS Újpest-lift Kft. concerning the State aid granted between 2006 and 2012 to companies employing disabled workers’ (‘the decision contested in the alternative’);

| — | 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 a plea in law in respect of each claim.

| 1. | First plea in law in support of the principal claim: error of law and incorrect assessment of the available evidence
  The Hungarian authorities granted unlawful State aid to 21 competitors of the applicant, in breach of Article 107(1) TFEU. That aid was not intended solely for the additional costs incurred in employing disabled workers, but was also to cover the general costs of the recipient undertakings, thereby distorting competition. In the decision primarily contested, the Commission indicated that the total amount of the aid granted to the recipient undertakings does not exceed the total amount of the aid that may be granted in accordance with Articles 41 and 42 of the General block exemption Regulation, (1) and that, in principle, the contested aid is therefore compatible with the internal market for the purposes of Article 107(3) TFEU. The decision primarily contested does not address the injurious effects for the applicant of the national measures by which the aid was allocated, and thereby infringes the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law in support of the principal claim: error of law and incorrect assessment of the available evidence

The Hungarian authorities granted unlawful State aid to 21 competitors of the applicant, in breach of Article 107(1) TFEU. That aid was not intended solely for the additional costs incurred in employing disabled workers, but was also to cover the general costs of the recipient undertakings, thereby distorting competition. In the decision primarily contested, the Commission indicated that the total amount of the aid granted to the recipient undertakings does not exceed the total amount of the aid that may be granted in accordance with Articles 41 and 42 of the General block exemption Regulation, (1) and that, in principle, the contested aid is therefore compatible with the internal market for the purposes of Article 107(3) TFEU. The decision primarily contested does not address the injurious effects for the applicant of the national measures by which the aid was allocated, and thereby infringes the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law in support of the subsidiary claim: error of law and manifest distortion of the available evidence
  The Commission erred in law and manifestly distorted the available evidence by stating, in the decision contested in the alternative, that the complaint made by OPS Újpest-lift Kft. contains no new legal or factual elements giving rise to any changes in the Commission’s assessment in case SA. 29432 — CP 290/2009. The decision contested in the alternative does not address the injurious effects for the applicant of the national measures by which the aid was allocated, and thereby infringes the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law in support of the subsidiary claim: error of law and manifest distortion of the available evidence

The Commission erred in law and manifestly distorted the available evidence by stating, in the decision contested in the alternative, that the complaint made by OPS Újpest-lift Kft. contains no new legal or factual elements giving rise to any changes in the Commission’s assessment in case SA. 29432 — CP 290/2009. The decision contested in the alternative does not address the injurious effects for the applicant of the national measures by which the aid was allocated, and thereby infringes the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles [107] and [108 TFEU] (OJ 2008 L 214, p. 3).

---