# C_2020010EN.01003401.xml

| 13.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/34

---

Action brought on 11 October 2019 – Compass Overseas Holdings and Others v Commission

(Case T-702/19)

(2020/C 10/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Compass Overseas Holdings Ltd (Chertsey, United Kingdom), Compass Overseas Holdings No.2 Ltd (Chertsey), Hospitality Holdings Ltd (Chertsey) (represented by: A. von Bonin, O. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision C(2019) 2526 Final of 2 April 2019 on the state aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision C(2019) 2526 Final of 2 April 2019 on the state aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment and failed to adequately state reasons in the identification in the contested decision of the reference system. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment and failed to adequately state reasons in the identification in the contested decision of the reference system.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment and failed to adequately state reasons in wrongly characterising, in the contested decision, the Group Financing Exemption as a derogation from the normal operation of the reference system. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment and failed to adequately state reasons in wrongly characterising, in the contested decision, the Group Financing Exemption as a derogation from the normal operation of the reference system.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment in finding, in the contested decision, that the Group Financing Exemption discriminates between economic operators. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment in finding, in the contested decision, that the Group Financing Exemption discriminates between economic operators.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment in the contested decision, in concluding that the Group Financing Exemption is not justified by the nature or overall structure of the reference system. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or made manifest errors of assessment in the contested decision, in concluding that the Group Financing Exemption is not justified by the nature or overall structure of the reference system.

---