# C_2017006EN.01004801.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/48

---

Action brought on 7 November 2006 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T-766/16)

(2017/C 006/60)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: S. Rating and Y. Martínez Mata, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul European Commission Decision C (2016) 4060 final; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission Decision C (2016) 4060 final; and

| — | 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

The contested decision, in so far as it relates to Hércules, concerns a loan of EUR 18 million granted by a private body to the Fundación de la Comunidad Valenciana Hércules de Alicante, another private body, which used a substantial share of the amount loaned to subscribe for shares in Hércules CF in the context of a capital increase. That loan was guaranteed by a public financial body, namely the Institut Valencià de Finances.

The Commission claims that, as a result of that transaction, Hércules CF benefitted from State aid, amounting to the difference between the actual costs of the guaranteed loan and the costs which it would have incurred under ostensible market conditions, that difference being updated from the date on which the loan was issued to the date of the decision.

In support of the action, the applicant invokes three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging misapplication of the Commission notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees.






  — | The applicant claims in this respect that it was not ‘a firm in difficulty’ within the meaning of the 2004 Guidelines and that the loan granted took into account the risk of default and the collateral of the loan. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging misapplication of the Commission notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees.

—

The applicant claims in this respect that it was not ‘a firm in difficulty’ within the meaning of the 2004 Guidelines and that the loan granted took into account the risk of default and the collateral of the loan.

| 2. | Second plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging the lack of effect on competition and trade between Member States.






  — | Hercules CF claims in this respect that it was unable to compete in Europe and that the alleged aid did not confer upon it any competitive advantage. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging the lack of effect on competition and trade between Member States.

—

Hercules CF claims in this respect that it was unable to compete in Europe and that the alleged aid did not confer upon it any competitive advantage.

| 3. | Third plea in law, also raised in the alternative, alleging an incorrect valuation of hypothetical aid. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, also raised in the alternative, alleging an incorrect valuation of hypothetical aid.

---