# C_2021412EN.01002401.xml

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/24

---

Action brought on 10 August 2021 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-489/21)

(2021/C 412/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 10 June 2021 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/2010) (Ex NN 36/2010, Ex CP 163/2009) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla La Mancha); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 10 June 2021 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/2010) (Ex NN 36/2010, Ex CP 163/2009) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas (outside Castilla La Mancha);

| — | 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 eight pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Spain’s right to be heard under Article 41(2) of the Charter, (1) and infringement of Article 4(4) read in conjunction with Article 6 of Regulation 2015/1589, (2) in that the burden of proof concerning selectivity was transferred to the Kingdom of Spain. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Spain’s right to be heard under Article 41(2) of the Charter, (1) and infringement of Article 4(4) read in conjunction with Article 6 of Regulation 2015/1589, (2) in that the burden of proof concerning selectivity was transferred to the Kingdom of Spain.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, in that the European Commission exceeded its powers in the implementation of the judgment of 20 December 2017, C-70/16 P, and infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations and, in particular, the principle of ‘reformatio in peius’ and Article 47 of the Charter. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, in that the European Commission exceeded its powers in the implementation of the judgment of 20 December 2017, C-70/16 P, and infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations and, in particular, the principle of ‘reformatio in peius’ and Article 47 of the Charter.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration laid down in Article 41 of the Charter, on account of the undue delay of three years and six months in fulfilling the obligation, set out in the judgment, to state reasons concerning the selectivity of the measure at issue. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration laid down in Article 41 of the Charter, on account of the undue delay of three years and six months in fulfilling the obligation, set out in the judgment, to state reasons concerning the selectivity of the measure at issue.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the Commission carried out an unwarranted examination of selectivity, reversing the burden of proof. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the Commission carried out an unwarranted examination of selectivity, reversing the burden of proof.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589, in that the measure was classified as an ‘aid scheme’. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589, in that the measure was classified as an ‘aid scheme’.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that unclear and contradictory quantification criteria were introduced with regard to the definition of ‘advantage’ contained in the decision. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that unclear and contradictory quantification criteria were introduced with regard to the definition of ‘advantage’ contained in the decision.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in that there was no advantage for the beneficiaries identified, and error of assessment in the determination of the beneficiary. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in that there was no advantage for the beneficiaries identified, and error of assessment in the determination of the beneficiary.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, in that an error of assessment was committed in the examination of compatibility. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, in that an error of assessment was committed in the examination of compatibility.

---

(1)  The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2016 C 202/02, p. 389).

(2)  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).

---