# C_2016419EN.01004801.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/48

---

Action brought on 6 September 2016 — Wabco Europe v Commission

(Case T-637/16)

(2016/C 419/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wabco Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Righini and S. Völcker, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application for annulment admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application for annulment admissible;

| — | annul, in whole or in part, the decision (1); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in whole or in part, the decision (1); and

1

| — | 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 six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because it is vitiated by errors in law and in fact in identifying the alleged State aid measure and categorising it as an aid scheme; |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because it is vitiated by errors in law and in fact in identifying the alleged State aid measure and categorising it as an aid scheme;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has erred in law and in fact in considering the measure selective under Article 107 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has erred in law and in fact in considering the measure selective under Article 107 TFEU;

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has erred in law and in fact in considering that the measure grants the applicant an advantage under Article 107 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has erred in law and in fact in considering that the measure grants the applicant an advantage under Article 107 TFEU;

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission’s inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons infringes Article 296 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission’s inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons infringes Article 296 TFEU;

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has breached the principle of good administration in failing to assess carefully and impartially all the elements of the case; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has breached the principle of good administration in failing to assess carefully and impartially all the elements of the case;

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has misused of its power in establishing its own arm’s length principle through a State aid decision. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has misused of its power in establishing its own arm’s length principle through a State aid decision.

---

(1)  Commission’s Decision C(2015) 9837 final of 11 January 2016 in State aid case SA.37667 — Excess Profit exemption in Belgium (the ‘decision’)

1

Excess Profit exemption in Belgium

---