# C_2016279EN.01003402.xml

| 1.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/34

---

Action brought on 31 May 2016 — Atlas Copco Airpower and Atlas Copco v Commission

(Case T-278/16)

(2016/C 279/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Atlas Copco Airpower (Antwerp, Belgium) and Atlas Copco AB (Nacka, Sweden) (represented by: A. von Bonin, A. Haelterman and O. Brouwer, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Comission of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Comission of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN);

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

—

order the defendant 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 four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error of law and manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged state aid measure and its classification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of 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 and Article 107 TFUE. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law and manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged state aid measure and its classification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of 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 and Article 107 TFUE.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFUE in holding that the Excess Profits adjustments system constitutes State aid. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFUE in holding that the Excess Profits adjustments system constitutes State aid.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the identification of the beneficiaries of the alleged aid, inconsistency in holding the multinational groups as beneficiaries and violation of the principle of legality and Article 16(1) of 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. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the identification of the beneficiaries of the alleged aid, inconsistency in holding the multinational groups as beneficiaries and violation of the principle of legality and Article 16(1) of 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.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and sound administration.

---