# C_2016251EN.01004201.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/42

---

Action brought on 19 May 2016 — Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) v Commission

(Case T-254/16)

(2016/C 251/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) SA (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. van den Broucke, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

primarily,

| — | find that the European Commission made multiple manifest errors of assessment and infringed its duty to state reasons in relation to the characterisation of the existence of an advantage conferred by the loan given by Foreign Strategic Investment Holding to Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg), both in the analysis of the comparability of the Sumitomo and Rabobank loans and in the application of the 2008 Reference Rate Communication; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the European Commission made multiple manifest errors of assessment and infringed its duty to state reasons in relation to the characterisation of the existence of an advantage conferred by the loan given by Foreign Strategic Investment Holding to Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg), both in the analysis of the comparability of the Sumitomo and Rabobank loans and in the application of the 2008 Reference Rate Communication;

in the alternative,

| — | find that the European Commission made a manifest error of assessment concerning the compatibility of the loan given by Foreign Strategic Investment Holding to Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) by holding that the 2009 Communication setting a temporary framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis was not applicable; |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the European Commission made a manifest error of assessment concerning the compatibility of the loan given by Foreign Strategic Investment Holding to Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) by holding that the 2009 Communication setting a temporary framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis was not applicable;

in any event and consequently,

| — | annul Article 1(e) of the European Commission’s Decision C(2016) 94 of 20 January 2016 on the State aid SA.33926 2013/C implemented by Belgium in favour of Duferco; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1(e) of the European Commission’s Decision C(2016) 94 of 20 January 2016 on the State aid SA.33926 2013/C implemented by Belgium in favour of Duferco;

| — | annul Articles 2 to 4 of that decision inasmuch as they concern the loan given by Foreign Strategic Investment Holding to Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 2 to 4 of that decision inasmuch as they concern the loan given by Foreign Strategic Investment Holding to Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg);

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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 loan given by Foreign Strategic Investment Holding to Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) did not confer any advantage and that the Commission made an error of assessment by holding that the loan at issue amounted to State aid. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the loan given by Foreign Strategic Investment Holding to Steel Invest & Finance (Luxembourg) did not confer any advantage and that the Commission made an error of assessment by holding that the loan at issue amounted to State aid.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in relation to the application of the Commission’s Communication — Temporary framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis (OJ 2009 C 83, p. 1). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in relation to the application of the Commission’s Communication — Temporary framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis (OJ 2009 C 83, p. 1).

---