# C_2020019EN.01005501.xml

| 20.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/55

---

Action brought on 25 October 2019 – LSEGH (Luxembourg) and London Stock Exchange Group Holdings (Italy) v Commission

(Case T-726/19)

(2020/C 19/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: LSEGH (Luxembourg) Ltd (London, United Kingdom), and London Stock Exchange Group Holdings (Italy) Ltd (London,) (represented by: O. Brouwer, A. Pliego Selie, and A. von Bonin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

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

—

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

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

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.

---