# C_2021206EN.01003301.xml

| 31.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 206/33

---

Action brought on 29 March 2021 — European Gaming and Betting Association v Commission

(Case T-167/21)

(2021/C 206/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Gaming and Betting Association (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: T. De Meese, K. Bourgeois and M. Van Nieuwenborgh, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 18 December 2020 in case SA.44830 (2016/FC) — Netherlands: Prolongation of gambling licenses in the Netherlands (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 18 December 2020 in case SA.44830 (2016/FC) — Netherlands: Prolongation of gambling licenses in the Netherlands (1);

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the applicant’s procedural rights by failing to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108 (2) TFEU while its preliminary investigation did not eliminate all doubts as to the existence of State aid.






  — | It is argued that the length and circumstances of the preliminary examination constitute evidence that the defendant had doubts as to the existence of State aid. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the applicant’s procedural rights by failing to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108 (2) TFEU while its preliminary investigation did not eliminate all doubts as to the existence of State aid.

—

It is argued that the length and circumstances of the preliminary examination constitute evidence that the defendant had doubts as to the existence of State aid.

| — | Furthermore, the applicant argues that the significant shift in the defendant’s analysis in the course of the preliminary examination constitutes evidence that the defendant had doubts as to the existence of State aid. |
| --- | --- |

—

Furthermore, the applicant argues that the significant shift in the defendant’s analysis in the course of the preliminary examination constitutes evidence that the defendant had doubts as to the existence of State aid.

| — | The applicant also argues that the defendant wrongly concluded that no doubts persist with regard to whether the renewal of the existing sports betting, horse race betting, lottery and casino licenses of the incumbent licensees by the Netherlands confers an advantage on the licensees. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant also argues that the defendant wrongly concluded that no doubts persist with regard to whether the renewal of the existing sports betting, horse race betting, lottery and casino licenses of the incumbent licensees by the Netherlands confers an advantage on the licensees.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment by finding that the renewal of the existing sports betting, horse race betting, lottery and casino licenses of the incumbent licensees by the Netherlands does not grant an advantage within the meaning of article 107(1) TFEU.






  — | It is argued that the defendant made manifest errors of fact, first, as concerns the finding of the defendant that all the licensees are under a legal obligation to remit the net proceeds of the gambling activities to goals that serve the common interest, and, secondly, as concerns the finding of the defendant that the licensees were not able to make a profit. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment by finding that the renewal of the existing sports betting, horse race betting, lottery and casino licenses of the incumbent licensees by the Netherlands does not grant an advantage within the meaning of article 107(1) TFEU.

—

It is argued that the defendant made manifest errors of fact, first, as concerns the finding of the defendant that all the licensees are under a legal obligation to remit the net proceeds of the gambling activities to goals that serve the common interest, and, secondly, as concerns the finding of the defendant that the licensees were not able to make a profit.

| — | Furthermore, the applicant maintains that the defendant made manifest errors of law, as concerns the finding of the defendant that the granting of the licenses in question did not confer an advantage on the beneficiaries as these licenses cannot be said to have improved the financial situation of the licensees. |
| --- | --- |

—

Furthermore, the applicant maintains that the defendant made manifest errors of law, as concerns the finding of the defendant that the granting of the licenses in question did not confer an advantage on the beneficiaries as these licenses cannot be said to have improved the financial situation of the licensees.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 C 17, p. 1

---